I'd entertain any idea that makes us better. The issue is, nobody has one. Saying that I want to re-sign Marner is pretty clear, and that pathway doesn't require naming alternatives to replace his impact.
That's a matter of opinion, then.
But I think committing more money and time to this group, particularly if they don't do anything this spring, is silly, and I don't get the stubbornness to change. Especially after you still couldn't give me an example of a team winning with 3 or 4 forwards making this much.
don't care about Dubas either, beyond the good he did for this team, and I don't think he's perfect. In fact, that's kind of the whole point. You don't need to be perfect to find effective, efficient depth. We should be more than capable of doing that. That's what successful teams do. That's what we need; not more cap space to pile onto the tens of millions in extra cap space that we're already getting over the next few years. Especially not at the expense of one of the best players in the league.
I've already addressed how misleading Stephen's post was. Since 2020, Marner is one of only 5 players to pace for 100+ points every year. He's 6th in points, 5th in P/GP, 5th in 5v5 points, 4th in 5v5 P/60, 7th in PP P/60, while providing high end defense and PKing against the toughest matchups. He's earned more than you'll give him credit for, and his loss would be more impactful than you realize.
Well, you could've fooled me, it seems like you are and have been very interested in him.
Anyway, even if they sign Manrer, it doesn't sound like you have much confidence in Treliving to fill the roster out anyway.
So, perhaps they should be extra careful and not overpay Mitch. and you can say it's misleading, but I think most would say it paints a pretty good picture of where he stands offensively. Mostly because of underplaying what the others are doing.
And I'll keep going back to it; that level of performance is not replicated in the postseason, and this has not success with this core. Something has to give.
So Danford went from 1st round pick to worthless in 7 months? Yikes. Why are you even worried about trading 1st round picks then? Apparently they lose all value once we use them anyway.
Foligno and O'Rielly are actually the only two times that we've used a 1st round pick on a rental in the Matthews era, and I don't even think either were intended to be rentals. Foligno just got injured with us, and Treliving couldn't convince O'Rielly to stay.
If things were going as well as they were in those years, I'd be more open to using a 1st on a rental, but with how things have unfolded this year, I'd rather not. That said, we have to do something. We can't just sit on all of these issues and flush a year down the toilet when the East and division is finally so wide open.
Dubas had the job for 5 years. I don't know why you keep saying 6. He's also been gone for 2 years, and isn't the one causing these issues. Treliving is.
Yeah, it wasn't a good pick. And why am I worried? Because I want them to pick a better player with more upside than a guy who's likely a 3rd pair D if he even makes it.
O'Reilly didn't want to stay in a big market, so it's not really on Treliving is it?
But these recurring jabs at him, particularly in contrast to how you view Dubas, are interesting; why so quick to defend one and not the other?
He didnt. He paid what they had earned, consistent with league history. You just choose not to accept how good they were. There also wasn't any rising cap to benefit from. The only one to get bent over in a core negotiation is Treliving with Nylander. But even then, it's manageable with the rising cap.
We don't need to wait years. There are going to be significant increases every year, and we have an opportunity to take advantage. Matthews and Marner are also still only 27, for the record.
Again, more anti-Tre, pro-Dubas stuff, interesting for someone who "doesn't care."
But no, Dubas got played. To say otherwise is certainly a choice. He lost on basically every main front. Term, AAV and signing bonuses
Most of this is due to the Tavares signing. However, Matthews' AAv relative to his term and Manrer's AAV were not good. Then, when you add that these guys got mostly paid in lumpsum signing bonuses as their "salary" to get around certain tax implications, the fact those deals weren't better is disappointing. His mishandling of Nylander was waiting until December to sign him, which basically made that season a write-off because he never caught up.
Also, being dictated to by Manrer's agent by saying, "Mitch goes last," is another issue.
Perhaps you can put it down to him being a rookie GM, but his handling of those was not optimal; but I'm sure you'll say differently.
Then, I'll bring up what Mackinnon and Barkov made on their 2nd contracts...
I don't care if you think they haven't done anything in the past. I care about what gives us the best chance at a cup moving forward.
Based on?
You're the one who's trying to use Colorado to make your point. I'm sure Necas will get some of the point inflation that Rantanen benefited from, but it's currently a downgrade for their team.
Yes, because the moment Mackinnon jumped to $13.6m, they knew putting a team together would be difficult. And here the Leafs are trying to possibly have two $13m dollar players and Nylander @ 11.5. All while having nowhere near to success of that team.
Also, you can have a positional/player downgrade and still have a net team gain if you are smart about how you build said team. I suppose that the lack of acceptance is what this debate is about, but those ideas are not exclusive to each other, and it's something that the Leafs should give some thought to rather than persisting with NBA-style team construction if again they fail to do anything in the playoffs, even though really, that should've been done in '23.
36 games is 36 games. It being the playoffs only magnifies the issues with small samples. You underrate his overall impact, and overrate the impacts of others. Matthews and Marner do generally outperform their opposition
Yes, of course, it does. Because it is a shorter yet more important format of playing, that's how it works.
As for the "outplaying" of the opposition - it hasn't manifested in much success, has it? And again, 36 games in the playoffs is not a small sample size; I'm sorry.
They are paid for their overall games. I am disappointed with the team outcomes, and I am disappointed with many of the situations we have experienced, and when you lose by such tiny margins, there is obviously disappointment with everybody that they couldn't find that one more goal. But overall, Marner has been a strong playoff performer, and many of the struggles that our core have had are struggles that top players pretty universally have in the same situations. Blaming him is misguided, and purging him will just lead to more disappointment. They are our best chance at a cup.
Sure, but it's not nothing when you continually get beaten, even if it is by small margins. And irrespective of your or my feelings of the players or even their performance (which we differ on), the mental and emotional side of these players and as a group is something that has to come into question, which is also why I'm very hesitant just to lay down and pay Marner whatever he wants.
Is it slightly unfair to him? Maybe, but as his agent once said, "Mitch goes last," and as it stands the most flexibility at this time is with him.
99 points is different than 90 points, and yes, ignoring pace and the level he actually performs at is attempting to change the way NHL contracts work. No GM has ever operated that way.
Which player has been paid for the pace they scored at rather than the rough average of what they've put up in the past, particularly on a 3rd contract?
You're paying for what they've done, not what they hypothetically/almost did a few times.