JT was paid like and supposed to be the solution to the "1967" problem, but he wasn't able to solve it, and his salary partially prevented Toronto from signing those who were capable. Time to cut bait and move on.
Rumor: TOR and John Tavares close to a deal: 3 years at 7 million
- Thread starter Ianturnedbull
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
With the guys currently signed included, we have $32.566 mil in cap space.
Tavares - $7 mil
Marner - $13 mil
Knies - $5 mil
$25 mil.
That leaves $7.566 left.
That's with 10 forwards signed, 6 D and 2 goalies...
Not signed, Lorentz, Dewar, Robertson Patches, Steeves. It does include Grebenkin though.
Not signed on D... Timmins.
Jarnkrok isn't included.
Essentially, you need to sign 5 players, for $7.556, if we assume the above singing prices are correct.
Cap wages projects Marner at $12.567 x 8, Tavares at $7.974 x 3 and Knies on a bridge at $3.743 x 3 years. (These figures not included in the math above.)
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
Yes, one player is responsible completely on their own.
Who are you replacing him with? What if they extend with their current team?
Marner jumped $10 mil in cap hit?
Matthews jumped $10.5 mil in cap hit?
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
Thanks for the explanation, the original post didn't have that clarity... I thought you meant on the most recent contract for Matthews, and the upcoming one for Marner.
ToneDog
56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
What about Woll going from 900K to $3.67m and McCabe from $2m to $4.5m? If that is in the $32.566 you listed at the top, then OK. I just simplified what it would take to keep the same cast by calculating the players who got and needed raises (i.e. Woll, McCabe, Knies, JT, MM).
HockeyVirus
16/34/88/91/44 - Pathetic losers
- Nov 15, 2020
- 21,240
- 32,408
I don't believe this rumor at all. How many teams in the league would offer Tavares 7m? How many of them are playoff teams? How many of those are in the east so he is close to family.
Leafs have all the leverage. I would honestly rather take next season as a retool season, save a bit of cap space, draft 10-20 with our first, and then take a run at McDavid the next season and go from there. But at least we would have lots of cap flexibility even with a massive hole at 2C. I think 3C gets filled internally.
Leafs have all the leverage. I would honestly rather take next season as a retool season, save a bit of cap space, draft 10-20 with our first, and then take a run at McDavid the next season and go from there. But at least we would have lots of cap flexibility even with a massive hole at 2C. I think 3C gets filled internally.
I was commenting on the actual math. 1+5=6, the poster had a typo that he then fixed.
Not sure how your posts relates to mine, or why it's quoted, but I'll be happy if Knies ends up as the PPG player those 3 are.
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
Quite a few.. Top six C's are in short supply. Just last year, Nashville offered Stamkos $8 million, for a player who was visibly breaking down.
The family is the relevant part though. He likely wants to stay, so it does provide leverage. I'm hoping it ends up working out to a creative deferral play, that gets the cap down to $5 mil... I mean, who cares what he is really paid, just get the cap down. Or, 8 years x $3 million, and stick him on LTIR, when his equipment gets itchy in three to four years. 3 x $7 mil, or 8 x $3 mil is basically the same dollars....
Generally, the going rate for a PPG player is around league minimum, this is the correct thought process.
Maple Leaf
VIP
- Sep 18, 2009
- 10,201
- 5,435
I am not sure why you would keep the core who has had no playoff success but here we are
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
Because they sell tickets and merchandise.
Sure, a few hardcore fans aren't happy, that the ultimate goal hasn't been achieved. But they make a lot of money, and retooling makes the product worse in all probability. Sure, there is a chance we could get better in a couple of years, but there is an equal chance we are worse. Being a consistent, near top of the league, playing in the playoffs is a good enough, and profitable enough result.
Evilhomer
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2019
- 6,451
- 6,349
They will win this season, and no one will care about these contracts.
HellasLEAF
'93 to Infinity
- Sep 14, 2006
- 15,578
- 2,024
When I see 3 x 7 for JT my first reaction is I don't like it. Sticking with the first reaction.
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
Minimize risk, to have a known revenue isn't necessarily an unusual way to run a business. Particularly when you are talking about moving on from two "stars" in the NHL, who do sell a lot of Jersey's etc. Your assumption is that they are going to leave money on the table, which isn't necessarily true. We are talking about a retool of some sort, and maybe getting worse, losing out on revenue from the playoffs, and also selling less merchandise, because two of the stars have moved on.
Last I saw jersey sales were split, so that wouldn't be a factor.
You're looking at 2 guaranteed home playoff games and the seats increase in value each round by about the price of a regular season game
So round one is 2x a regular season game, finals are 5x.
That's a lot of lost revenue, especially when you stack on what they do with the square in playoffs
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,337
- 29,448
Again, your assumption is you go extra rounds, instead of missing the playoffs altogether. How is it you are guaranteeing extra rounds, by making changes? How are you Guaranteeing they don't miss the playoffs, and reduce revenue? Not hoping, an absolute guarantee.
And revenue, you only get half of, doesn't count as revenue? Hmmm...
I can see why you'd think that with how I wrote the post, so that's on me. But realistically you're guaranteed the regular season games, then the rest is a gamble. So there is already a built in safe guard.
Given the pricing structure of tickets and opportunity costs that come with going deep. A run is much more profitable than sustained first round losses
Martin Skoula
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 12,516
- 17,636
I think MLSE’s dream would be losing in game 7 OT of the cup finals every year with a new star leading the way each time. I think too many people will significantly drop their viewing time and ticket/merch spend within a year of a cup win, it’s a bucket list item scratched off for the most passionate and highest disposable income part of the fan base. The idea of a one-and-done fluke cup run where we win short series with only 2-3 home games against small market teams with no rivalry and no drama probably keeps MLSE execs awake at night.
