Contracts for the Big-3

[Frank E]

Don't disagree. I'm just saying this hopefully uncontroversial thing: the longer the Leafs look like the 2007-9 Penguins or the 2013-15 Hawks, the better.

My only objection is just that I don't think a team can look like those Hawks teams anymore. We're not going to have Keith/Hossa equivalents.

I meant more in terms of having a mix of elite talent and good depth.

I get that, but I don't even think you can have that if your elite want market $, and you want to keep 4 elite guys.

This whole team building thing has taken a turn here in the past 2 months.  Dubas can't get any of them signed for a team friendly deal, and I think he's going to have to make a decision on one of them...or maybe he signs Nylander to a bridge, but gives Matthews and Marner the big $, and trades Nylander down the road.

 

[Bender]

Couldn't you say the same about Nylander to a degree?

Um, no? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Exactly. How is $7-8mil now worse than $10+mil long term 3yrs from now going forward? Maybe they're betting on the arbitrator not giving him that much?

There's only a handful of players out there with a $10mil AAV. I like Nylander, but it's difficult for me to project him at a $10mil AAV a few years from now. Even if the cap rises a little bit.

Meaning its obvious at this point that Nylander needs Matthews for his point totals more than the other way around if Kapanen can slot in and be almost as effective (and probably moreso defensively).

 

[Highlander]

11 pm is Switzerland... and... nothing.

its possible they are meeting in the AM as Dubas arrived later afternoon, or having dinner tonight with follow up in the AM.  Hopefully we have a bridge deal done by the end of tomorrow.

 

[Hobbes]

11 pm is Switzerland... and... nothing.

its possible they are meeting in the AM as Dubas arrived later afternoon, or having dinner tonight with follow up in the AM.  Hopefully we have a bridge deal done by the end of tomorrow.

Also allows time to leave a horse's head on the pillow...

It almost fits...Lou as Vito and Dubas as Michael.

 

[mr grieves]

Don't disagree. I'm just saying this hopefully uncontroversial thing: the longer the Leafs look like the 2007-9 Penguins or the 2013-15 Hawks, the better.

My only objection is just that I don't think a team can look like those Hawks teams anymore. We're not going to have Keith/Hossa equivalents.

I meant more in terms of having a mix of elite talent and good depth.

Right and I'm saying that a big part of that being possible was having Keith and Hossa signed to contracts you can no longer sign players to.

Kadri and Rielly are only sort of this (in all aspects). We'd be in a heap of depth trouble if we didn't have these two.

Yeah, and, absent team-friendly long term deals, those two won't be around in a few years -- then we'll really be in the Penguins position, minus, y'know, two top-three centers in the league and a Norris calibre defenseman... so I guess not really.

These next few years will be as good as it gets as far as having a balance of controlled elite talent and decent depth. Keeping that going will, I think, depend on whether they get a few team friendly deals -- or at least long-term extension that lock in decent value in the later years (like they're getting from Rielly and Gardiner now).

 

[rdowdall]

So replace Arizona with New York Rangers.  To a degree I was parroting something that Maguire said on the radio this morning, where he said "If I am Arizona, and Matthews is not signed, I offer him whatever he wants next year as an RFA to come play with us.  Sure the Leafs probably match, but take the chance.  At the very least you throw a wrench in to their plans."

Consider the source. There's a reason that despite his efforts Maguire has failed to get a GM job.

Matthews at the Max will be hard to build around for anyone but the Leafs, who'd be the only team who could do it without having to give up 4 first round picks, would be the best situated to do it. I don't think it makes any real sense, financial or competitive, to do that for any team.

Well, I never said it would be a great idea.  I can just see a scenario where a GM thinks it would be a coup to get Matthews on his team, so he would offer sheet Matthews and see what would happen.  Now, this is based on the hype that is out there right now.  If his production continues to be compared to the production of Gretzky and Lemieux, then I think that this is a scenario that could happen.  If he comes back down to earth a little, and finishes the season with 40 goals and 70 points, then it probably becomes less likely.   

(As an aside, what is so special about the first 7 games of a season?  Why is starting a season with consecutive multi-point games any different than putting up 16 points in 7 games in January?  In some ways I think that is more special, because the games to start the season are usually a little loser defensively)

Also, I should have clarified that I did not think that Matthews would seek it out.  Of the three though, I do think that the one who would be the most likely to receive an offer sheet would be Matthews, hence the term worry.  Not worry in the sense that I am losing sleep over it, more worry in the sense that if I was Dubas, and I was prioritizing who to get under contract because I just don't want the hassle of dealing with an offer sheet, The Matthews contract would be at the top of the list.

 

[Kin]

Well, I never said it would be a great idea.  I can just see a scenario where a GM thinks it would be a coup to get Matthews on his team, so he would offer sheet Matthews and see what would happen.

Well, if it eases that concern I genuinely don't think NHL GMs think that way. I think most of them know their own job and continued employment in the league has way more to do with making good decisions for their teams than
it does with scoring coups.

To that end, I just don't think the number exists for a team where it makes sense to offer it to Matthews, sacrifice the picks and then try to build a champion where it somehow doesn't make sense for the Leafs to match, keep their picks and try to build a champion. That's why offer sheets don't happen.

 

[Bates]

Some team might just be more concerned with survival right now and bringing "home" a star just might be a great idea from a marketing standpoint. I think the Coyotes offer sheet Matthews high the first day he's available if that day arrives. No idea why he would sign that sheet with future not solid???

Well, I never said it would be a great idea.  I can just see a scenario where a GM thinks it would be a coup to get Matthews on his team, so he would offer sheet Matthews and see what would happen.

Well, if it eases that concern I genuinely don't think NHL GMs think that way. I think most of them know their own job and continued employment in the league has way more to do with making good decisions for their teams than
it does with scoring coups.

To that end, I just don't think the number exists for a team where it makes sense to offer it to Matthews, sacrifice the picks and then try to build a champion where it somehow doesn't make sense for the Leafs to match, keep their picks and try to build a champion. That's why offer sheets don't happen.

 

[Kin]

That sort of thing has been said about Matthews since basically the day he was drafted and, honestly, I've responded to it enough.

 

[rdowdall]

Well, I never said it would be a great idea.  I can just see a scenario where a GM thinks it would be a coup to get Matthews on his team, so he would offer sheet Matthews and see what would happen.

Well, if it eases that concern I genuinely don't think NHL GMs think that way. I think most of them know their own job and continued employment in the league has way more to do with making good decisions for their teams than
it does with scoring coups.

To that end, I just don't think the number exists for a team where it makes sense to offer it to Matthews, sacrifice the picks and then try to build a champion where it somehow doesn't make sense for the Leafs to match, keep their picks and try to build a champion. That's why offer sheets don't happen.

I think GM's can fall under the power of a narrative just the same as any one else.  I also think they can look at a situation and feel that they can control the situation and some suffer from hubris just the same as any other person in power and that can lead to mistakes.  Agreed, those aren't the signs of a great GM, but not every GM in the NHL is a great GM.

The above combined with the unique situation that Matthews presents, potentially the second best player in the league, Toronto's need to fit 3 superstars and one potential super star under the cap, a second superstar also in his RFA year, could lead to this perfect storm where someone takes a run because they feel that after they add Matthews, they'll be able to build around them because they have signed some college free agent that is good, or they have some prospects ready to make the jump, and with Matthews in the fold, the picks they are giving up won't be nearly as good as Matthews on the team.  Again, I am not saying any of this is right, or what I would do as a GM, but I could see a GM thinking along these lines.   

Offer sheets don't typically happen, but the Matthews situation may not be a typical situation, similar to what we saw with Tavares in the summer.  Superstar UFA's don't usually leave their teams either, but this summer it happened because of the situation that the Islanders are in.   

 

[Kin]

I think GM's can fall under the power of a narrative just the same as any one else.

Yeah, I genuinely don't. I think that NHL GMs are pretty self-interested as a rule and don't do things unless they think it'll be good for their team and, resultingly, themselves. I don't think they'd be where they are if they were the kind of people who got carried up in stories over actual results. That's not to suggest that they're always right but rather that when they're wrong, they're wrong as a result of either genuine lapses of judgement or acting out of self-preservation. 

I also think they can look at a situation and feel that they can control the situation and some suffer from hubris just the same as any other person in power and that can lead to mistakes.  Agreed, those aren't the signs of a great GM, but not every GM in the NHL is a great GM.

Again, GMs can make bad decisions, sometimes in the heat of things and sometimes carefully considered but just like when someone presents a trade where the rationale is "Well, the other team might agree to it because some GMs are stupid" I tend not to be overly concerned with something like that happening until there's anything lending weight to it beyond just it being theoretically possible.
 

Offer sheets don't typically happen, but the Matthews situation may not be a typical situation, similar to what we saw with Tavares in the summer.  Superstar UFA's don't usually leave their teams either, but this summer it happened because of the situation that the Islanders are in. 

Leaving aside that "one unlikely thing happened, therefore another entirely unrelated unlikely thing is somehow more plausible" is not a super-solid argument I think this is a misreading of the situation. The difference between Tavares leaving his team and the guys who leave their teams every year, and good UFAs leave their teams every year, is one of degree. Is Tavares the best free agent to ever leave his team? Eh, probably not. He's somewhere in the top 5. "Superstar" isn't an actual term with tangible meaning and absent that good free agents leave their teams. Parise, Niedermayer, Chara, Hossa, Richards...it happens. 6-7 times at least since the cap, which basically means every other year. It's not Halley's comet.

Conversely there is no list of guys beyond a handful of pretty minor players who've been offer-sheeted without their teams matching because the terms offered weren't enough of a poison pill. It didn't happen with Kessel, it didn't happen with O'Reilly, it didn't happen with Weber...if it happened with Matthews it would effectively be unprecedented.

Again, and again and again, year after year after year. GMs, some good and some bad and all with agendas come to pretty much the same conclusion on RFA's. The same just isn't true with really good UFA's.

 

[sickbeast]

With apologies to Herman:

Lol

Don?t ever apologize for this.

WTF

It's a TML fans gang inside joke apparently??

They don't realize this now, but the joke is on them.

 

[herman]

With apologies to Herman:

Lol

Don?t ever apologize for this.

WTF

It's a TML fans gang inside joke apparently??

They don't realize this now, but the joke is on them.

There is no inside joke; it is literally laughing out loud. Which is what happens when I read something funny and is not my trademark/property and thus no one is beholden to me to also laugh out loud.

Here?s Grammarly?s definition and history of ?lol? in case it helps clarify this mystery.

 

[Bill_Berg]

With apologies to Herman:

Lol

Don?t ever apologize for this.

WTF

It's a TML fans gang inside joke apparently??

They don't realize this now, but the joke is on them.

There is no inside joke; it is literally laughing out loud. Which is what happens when I read something funny and is not my trademark/property and thus no one is beholden to me to also laugh out loud.

Here?s Grammarly?s definition and history of ?lol? in case it helps clarify this mystery.

Lol

 

[louisstamos]

With apologies to Herman:

Lol

Don?t ever apologize for this.

WTF

It's a TML fans gang inside joke apparently??

They don't realize this now, but the joke is on them.

There is no inside joke; it is literally laughing out loud. Which is what happens when I read something funny and is not my trademark/property and thus no one is beholden to me to also laugh out loud.

Here?s Grammarly?s definition and history of ?lol? in case it helps clarify this mystery.

I used to think lol meant "lot's of love."  It backfired on me when I sent a message "Sorry to hear about your grandma, lol."

 

[CarltonTheBear]

With apologies to Herman:

Lol

Don?t ever apologize for this.

WTF

It's a TML fans gang inside joke apparently??

They don't realize this now, but the joke is on them.

There is no inside joke; it is literally laughing out loud. Which is what happens when I read something funny and is not my trademark/property and thus no one is beholden to me to also laugh out loud.

Here?s Grammarly?s definition and history of ?lol? in case it helps clarify this mystery.

I used to think lol meant "lot's of love."  It backfired on me when I sent a message "Sorry to hear about your grandma, lol."

I thought it meant "lack of laughter" and herman was solemnly agreeing with that one post. This changes everything.

 

[Andy007]

Oh snap, the unsuspecting gang has been victimized by a scathing joke! Lol!

 

[ZBBM]

Just want to point out that, literally, the only difference between

https://www.tsn.ca/dreger-doesn-t-sound-like-dubas-nylander-exchanged-numbers-1.1193790

and

"ZBBM says it is believed that Dubas and Nylander spent an enjoyable afternoon discussing the merits of Swiss neutrality"

is that Dreger comes with a corporate logo.

 

[Frank E]

Nylander:  Sure, I'll consider a bridge...$8mX3.

 

[Zee]

Hopefully that Swiss Bank accepts the duffel bag of money Nylander tried to deposit, courtesy of MLSE.