The Case For Bringing Back The Core

[notDatsyuk]

You're right, I grabbed an extra year, top 2 was over the previous 4 years. In any case, both sets of numbers reflect an elite 1C, so, good catch I guess?

He was signed here to be the 2nd high end 1C in a great 1-2 punch, like the previous 3 cup winners had at the time of his signing. That's not the same as being brought in to be a 2C. His production has been more than fine.

Yes. He slowed down a bit this past season, but "he hasn't brought much" is completely misleading. The numbers speak for themselves. He's a very boring hockey player, the superstar grinder archetype. His offensive game is built on hustle/body position, intelligence, and putting the puck in the net, not flashy skills.

If "he was signed here to be the 2nd high end 1C in a great 1-2 punch", then Dubas really blew the assessment!

 

[notDatsyuk]

It was the 4, including Nylander's. Yes, he has outperformed it the last few years but it was an overpay at the time compared to Pasta IMO. He was also made whole for missing 2 months. Rielly's contract is good if we get closer to playoff Rielly. Hopefully it is not bad in years 3+ as Seravelli predicts.

Yeah, I forgot about the missing months. That was weird.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Just watching him play

In other words, you've got nothing.

I fail to see how you arrive at those players as comparables.

I didn't arrive at those players as comparables. As I said in the post, that's just a list of the UFA contracts in the cap era that fell in the 13-14% range that Tavares got.
What justification do you have for suggesting that those players through those years would be so much more valuable than Tavares?

 

[notDatsyuk]

In other words, you've got nothing.

I didn't arrive at those players as comparables. As I said in the post, that's just a list of the UFA contracts in the cap era that fell in the 13-14% range that Tavares got.
What justification do you have for suggesting that those players through those years would be so much more valuable than Tavares?

So you edited my post, changing the meaning (which already answered your question), and then deleted my question, so you could avoid answering it.

Typical.

Funny as you can be, that's enough wasting my time today.

 

[rumman]

Tavares got a lower cap hit on a 7 year term than he would have on, for example, a 5 year term. Not sure what's confusing about this.
9m for 5-6 years and no NMC is a ridiculous suggestion. That's completely out of touch with Tavares' quality and contract valuation in the NHL.

For reference, these are the other UFA contracts in the 13-14% range...
Iginla through ages 31-35.
Spezza through ages 25-31.
Nash through ages 26-33.
Elias through ages 30-36.
Lecavalier through ages 29-39.
St Louis through ages 30-35.
Perry through ages 28-35.
Gaborik through ages 27-31.
Hossa through age 29.
Benn through ages 28-35.

I fail to see how you arrive at Tavares as some weird outlier.

None of those players lived up to those contracts, as a organization you need to know when to cut ties with declining assets……..

 

[Dekes For Days]

So you edited my post, changing the meaning (which already answered your question), and then deleted my question, so you could avoid answering it.

I didn't edit your post, or change the meaning of anything. You can reference what you said in post #474. I have answered question after question of yours to help you better understand contracts, while you have avoiding answering pretty much all of mine and failed to give any substantiation for your claim that Tavares was overpaid.

The only thing I didn't respond to of yours was a question that had no answer because it was inherently dishonest by suggesting that Tavares was a second line quality player.
To answer your question, all of the players, including Tavares, were first line quality players when they signed.

None of those players lived up to those contracts, as a organization you need to know when to cut ties with declining assets……..

While a steep uphill battle in either, you'd have a much easier time arguing against signing UFAs in general than you would arguing that Tavares was historically overpaid.

 

[GoonieFace]

Just because there are UFA comparables, doesn’t mean it’s a smart move. Most UFA’s are overpaid. Being able to avoid those mistakes is what a good GM should do. Tavares was never a need and came at a high price tag. Knowing he had to sign these other three clowns, this was a huge misstep

 

[Racer88]

Higher and lower cap hit than what? Matthews, Marner, and Tavares aren't equal players. Tavares was in their range in cap hit because he was UFA.
13.84% of the cap for the age 28-34 seasons of Tavares. That doesn't seem unreasonable or inconsistent with history.

How’s that working out for us?

 

[seanlinden]

The other thing you need to take into account is what it's going to cost to get rid of Murray, whether we trade him or buy him out (this one is really not an option). We have precious few draft picks to include in any trade, and there will very likely be some salary retention if we are lucky enough to be able to trade him. Also, I don't rally have a problem if Mathews wants to be the highest paid player, although personally I don't feel he is worth it. so as long as he does what MacKinnon did and only take $100,000 more than what MacKinnon makes, then okay. If he wants any more than that, then obviously his main priority is looking out for himself, rather than be willing to help the team out, so I would trade him.

Honestly.... making Matthews the highest paid player in the league on a short term deal is a problem. He's not the best player in the league.

You look at that MacKinnon deal, yes, it makes him "overpaid" probably in years 1, 2, and 3; but then McDavid comes up for renewal with what is likely a $95m+ cap....

With Matthews, there is a "justification" for giving him $13.5m x 8 years, knowing that he's going to be less value than McDavid for years 1 & 2, but likely similar or better value beyond.

The problem is -- if the speculation is true -- he seems to be focused on ensuring that he's never really underpaid/ leaving money on the table, and somebody who has that mindset is one who doesn't prioritize winning. You can't win with guys who don't want to win badly enough to put their pocketbook towards it.... especially when the guy already has $55m in career earnings already.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Just watching him play, I fail to see how you arrive at those players as comparables. How many of them were signed to be second line players?

That's my post. That is not how you quoted it. How can you make a statement that is so clearly false?

I didn't edit your post, or change the meaning of anything. You can reference what you said in post #474. I have answered question after question of yours to help you better understand contracts, while you have avoiding answering pretty much all of mine and failed to give any substantiation for your claim that Tavares was overpaid.

The only thing I didn't respond to of yours was a question that had no answer because it was inherently dishonest by suggesting that Tavares was a second line quality player.
To answer your question, all of the players, including Tavares, were first line quality players when they signed.

As usual, you are wrong. I did not suggest that Tavares was a second line player - I at most implied that he was signed as a second line player, which is true.

So again, you did not answer my question, but some weird variation that you made up to avoid the real question.

 

[Dekes For Days]

That's my post. That is not how you quoted it

That is what I quoted. Nothing was edited, or had the meaning changed. I responded to your statement "Just watching him play" - which wasn't an actual answer - and then responded to your statement "I fail to see how you arrive at those players as comparables.", which you said knowing that they were not comparables that I picked out, but merely the list of UFA contracts within the 13-14% range that you failed to justify as more valuable than Tavares, destroying your initial claim that he was overpaid. See post #478.

You have avoided every single question asked of you as I have answered countless ones of yours and helped you better understand contracts. The only thing that I did not initially respond to was an inherently dishonest question that was built around the incorrect idea that Tavares was signed as a second line player, though I did respond in my next post when you made false claims about me and my post. To answer your question again, all of the players, including Tavares, were signed as first line players.

You're trying to paint Tavares as a "second line player", when he was 1st line quality, physically played on the 1st line every year prior to signing, and physically played on the 1st line when first joining Toronto. Just because he later transitioned to carry the line behind one of the best centers and players in the league, that doesn't make him a second line player, just like Malkin wasn't a "second line player". Most if not all of the other referenced players also physically played on lines other than just the "1st line", so your attempt to claim that Tavares is different in that way also falls flat - not that it would have anything to do with his contract anyway.

 

[notDatsyuk]

That is what I quoted. Nothing was edited, or had the meaning changed. I responded to your statement "Just watching him play" - which wasn't an actual answer - and then responded to your statement "I fail to see how you arrive at those players as comparables.", which you said knowing that they were not comparables that I picked out, but merely the list of UFA contracts within the 13-14% range that you failed to justify as more valuable than Tavares, destroying your initial claim that he was overpaid. See post #478.

You have avoided every single question asked of you as I have answered countless ones of yours and helped you better understand contracts. The only thing that I did not initially respond to was an inherently dishonest question that was built around the incorrect idea that Tavares was signed as a second line player, though I did respond in my next post when you made false claims about me and my post. To answer your question again, all of the players, including Tavares, were signed as first line players.

You're trying to paint Tavares as a "second line player", when he was 1st line quality, physically played on the 1st line every year prior to signing, and physically played on the 1st line when first joining Toronto. Just because he later transitioned to carry the line behind one of the best centers and players in the league, that doesn't make him a second line player, just like Malkin wasn't a "second line player". Most if not all of the other referenced players also physically played on lines other than just the "1st line", so your attempt to claim that Tavares is different in that way also falls flat - not that it would have anything to do with his contract anyway.

You can't even admit it when it's shown right to you! Forget it. I have no time for liars.

Sorry - that's not fair. Maybe you're just completely unaware of the difference between a sentence and a subordinate clause. Obviously sarcasm is also beyond you, as you seem to think I was seriously asking your opinion on contracts, rather than laughing at your constantly changing your statements when caught in mistakes.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You can't even admit it when it's shown right to you!

What you showed to me was what I quoted and responded to. You posted it in post #474, and I responded in post #478.
Then, after you made false claims about me and my post, I expanded on everything in post #481 and then again in post #486.
Everything you said has been responded to, while I've mostly just gotten personal attacks back from you.

Sorry - that's not fair. Maybe you're just completely unaware of the difference between a sentence and a subordinate clause. Obviously sarcasm is also beyond you, as you seem to think I was seriously asking your opinion on contracts, rather than laughing at your constantly changing your statements when caught in mistakes.

I was aware what you were doing (and at least you're admitting that you weren't engaging in an honest conversation), but took the high road, and tried to help you out when you were mistaken about how contracts worked and asking questions.
There were no mistakes or changed statements from me. Everything I said was consistent, extensively proven, and the same position I've held for years and years.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I can't argue with those facts, Dekes, but I will counter with: we didn't do diddly squat in the playoffs with them in their ELC years when they weren't taking up so much of the cap, and haven't done any better since they signed their extensions (although they did manage to barely get by Tampa these playoffs).

I mean, we have done better, even if it's not as much better as we want and not manifesting as much yet in the outcomes we want.
But the point, which you seem to acknowledge above, is that it's not really about cap allocation.

We have seen how much the d needs to be improved, and the difficulty in surrounding this core (who you HAVE to admit have never fared well when it mattered the most) with good enough depth players.

The idea that the core has "never" fared well in important moments is just not true. They have had moments of struggle through their teens and first half of their 20s, as every player has, but they've also had a lot of big moments that tend to get brushed aside and forgotten after the end team outcome is not as desired.

Our defense has been quite good over the past few years. It is true that less cap space makes it more difficult to have quality depth, but we have actually done pretty good at that too, and found a lot of quality depth pieces, especially considering the circumstances. There's a reason that they all move on to get big contracts. It's not because they suck. If you're upset that we haven't had better depth, that has a lot more to do with our prospect pool being emptied early in our rise, bad drafting at the end of our rebuild/beginning of our competitive phase, the cost of removing the cap anchors Lou left us, an unexpected multi-year stagnant cap, and some bad injury luck (both in our on-team depth and in our top drafted prospect, for example, getting cancer).

Sure, you could remove one of the core players and insert a couple depth players instead, but the difference between those depth players and the ones we're replacing is very unlikely to be bigger than the lost impact from the lost core player. Especially since Tavares had a NMC and you'd have to be removing the core players that bring the most surplus value to your team. It's just not a realistic option to help your team, which is why we haven't done it.

Also, Tavares is not going to age well with his contract.

People have been saying that for years, and yet he's aged quite well. He's already approaching the end of his contract.

So please tell me how you see this team overcoming these obstacles by giving Marner and Matthews (very doubtful Nylander gets anywhere close to what his next contract could be) substantial raises

The biggest thing you need to do to improve depth is draft better, and we've been doing that. It just takes time for that to translate to quality NHL depth. We saw a number of prospects play on the team this year, we saw Knies come in in the playoffs and be a massive piece for us, and we're likely to see more from the Dubas drafts over the next couple years. Treliving needs to continue that.

Matthews, Marner, and Nylander will get raises, but Tavares' contract will either be gone or lower in 2 years, and those raises will quickly represent a lower percentage of the cap than we've had to work with for their current contracts due to the cap stagnation. So we'll have more space by doing literally nothing. We don't need to throw away pieces we tried to acquire for decades in order to maintain and improve this team.

 

[Captain Crunch]

I mean, we have done better, even if it's not as much better as we want and not manifesting as much yet in the outcomes we want.
But the point, which you seem to acknowledge above, is that it's not really about cap allocation.

The idea that the core has "never" fared well in important moments is just not true. They have had moments of struggle through their teens and first half of their 20s, as every player has, but they've also had a lot of big moments that tend to get brushed aside and forgotten after the end team outcome is not as desired.

Our defense has been quite good over the past few years. It is true that less cap space makes it more difficult to have quality depth, but we have actually done pretty good at that too, and found a lot of quality depth pieces, especially considering the circumstances. There's a reason that they all move on to get big contracts. It's not because they suck. If you're upset that we haven't had better depth, that has a lot more to do with our prospect pool being emptied early in our rise, bad drafting at the end of our rebuild/beginning of our competitive phase, the cost of removing the cap anchors Lou left us, an unexpected multi-year stagnant cap, and some bad injury luck (both in our on-team depth and in our top drafted prospect, for example, getting cancer).

Sure, you could remove one of the core players and insert a couple depth players instead, but the difference between those depth players and the ones we're replacing is very unlikely to be bigger than the lost impact from the lost core player. Especially since Tavares had a NMC and you'd have to be removing the core players that bring the most surplus value to your team. It's just not a realistic option to help your team, which is why we haven't done it.

People have been saying that for years, and yet he's aged quite well. He's already approaching the end of his contract.

The biggest thing you need to do to improve depth is draft better, and we've been doing that. It just takes time for that to translate to quality NHL depth. We saw a number of prospects play on the team this year, we saw Knies come in in the playoffs and be a massive piece for us, and we're likely to see more from the Dubas drafts over the next couple years. Treliving needs to continue that.

Matthews, Marner, and Nylander will get raises, but Tavares' contract will either be gone or lower in 2 years, and those raises will quickly represent a lower percentage of the cap than we've had to work with for their current contracts due to the cap stagnation. So we'll have more space by doing literally nothing. We don't need to throw away pieces we tried to acquire for decades in order to maintain and improve this team.

I want to ask you a question: would you agree that having a pick in the first round is better than having a pick in any other round?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I want to ask you a question: would you agree that having a pick in the first round is better than having a pick in any other round?

A 1st round pick is better to have than a pick in a later round, yes. That said, "1st round pick" covers an extremely large value range. There's a much bigger difference between the top of the 1st round and the bottom of the 1st round than there is between the bottom of the 1st round and a mid-round pick.

And maintaining competitiveness and building good depth tends to be a lot more about what you find with picks outside of the 1st round, especially since 1st round picks aren't always available for competitive teams that use them to try and win.

 

[Captain Crunch]

A 1st round pick is better to have than a pick in a later round, yes. That said, "1st round pick" covers an extremely large value range. There's a much bigger difference between the top of the 1st round and the bottom of the 1st round than there is between the bottom of the 1st round and a mid-round pick.

And maintaining competitiveness and building good depth tends to be a lot more about what you find with picks outside of the 1st round, especially since 1st round picks aren't always available for competitive teams that use them to try and win.

So it basically comes down to the scouting department then. And they need to be spot on if they believe their guy will be available later if you want to trade down, while possibly also acquiring a pick in a later round. But ultimately it's the GM's decision on whether to do that or not.
I would be curious to know, say of at least the last 5 Cup champs, the percentage of their own draft picks who made up the team. It would probably vary.

 

[arso40]

That is what I quoted. Nothing was edited, or had the meaning changed. I responded to your statement "Just watching him play" - which wasn't an actual answer - and then responded to your statement "I fail to see how you arrive at those players as comparables.", which you said knowing that they were not comparables that I picked out, but merely the list of UFA contracts within the 13-14% range that you failed to justify as more valuable than Tavares, destroying your initial claim that he was overpaid. See post #478.

You have avoided every single question asked of you as I have answered countless ones of yours and helped you better understand contracts. The only thing that I did not initially respond to was an inherently dishonest question that was built around the incorrect idea that Tavares was signed as a second line player, though I did respond in my next post when you made false claims about me and my post. To answer your question again, all of the players, including Tavares, were signed as first line players.

You're trying to paint Tavares as a "second line player", when he was 1st line quality, physically played on the 1st line every year prior to signing, and physically played on the 1st line when first joining Toronto. Just because he later transitioned to carry the line behind one of the best centers and players in the league, that doesn't make him a second line player, just like Malkin wasn't a "second line player". Most if not all of the other referenced players also physically played on lines other than just the "1st line", so your attempt to claim that Tavares is different in that way also falls flat - not that it would have anything to do with his contract anyway.

What line has he carried since becoming a leaf did I miss something ?

 

[hockeywiz542]

Dreger on Nylander’s ongoing contract negotiations, Leafs’ intentions to retain core and more - TSN.ca

TSN hockey insider Darren Dreger joins Leafs Lunch to discuss the latest around William Nylander’s contract and the team's intentions to keep core together, Toronto businessman Michael Andlauer reaching a deal in principle to buy the Ottawa Senators and more.

 

[Racer88]

I hate to beat a dead horse but just watch Vegas play tonight and you will see how over paid and under performing our star are and How poorly balanced our team is.
Mark Stone just scored his 9th playoff goal tonight

 

[MCR74]

I hate to beat a dead horse but just watch Vegas play tonight and you will see how over paid and under performing our star are and How poorly balanced our team is.
Mark Stone just scored his 9th playoff goal tonight

The day our core even comes close to 9 playoff goals, l'll fall on my ass.

 

[Racer88]

The day our core even comes close to 9 playoff goals, l'll fall on my ass.

No doubt

 

[Racer88]

Vegas’s Captain just scored his second of the game and his 10th of the playoffs…….I guess he believes in leading by example

 

[MCR74]

Vegas’s Captain just scored his second of the game and his 10th of the playoffs…….I guess he believes in leading by example

Ours believes in going to the cottage.

 

[Larcos_Unal]

Our core is not it, they're petulant boys, we need them to grow up.

Tell em Bruce: