Marner signs 6 year, $10.893mil AAV contract

[mr grieves]

The salary structure the Leafs have now got is not one that's ever been seen in the Stanley Cup Finals. That's concerning.

Not going to argue the numbers, but the doesn't the makeup of the team sort of resemble the 16/17 penguins stanley cup teams? High quality top forwards, one or two top defencemen, a good goalie, and a mishmash of spare parts for the bottom part of the lineup?

Yes, that'd be the model the Leafs are aiming at. But, with their high-quality top forwards under big contracts, the Penguins didn't win until they made some moves for secondary talent and quality depth -- and they could only do that after a couple years passed and the cap rose to push the C.H.% of their top talent down, which gave them the space to add.

Dom at the Athletic looks at top-4 players' cumulative cap hits in his recent piece. A bit of that:

Few teams might have what the team has up front, but no other team is paying for it the way Toronto is... The Bruins aren?t spending 50 percent on Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand, David Pastrnak and Charlie McAvoy... You could go on and on throughout the league. The four highest-paid contracts take up 37 percent of a team?s cap hit on average, thanks to many other stars taking much friendlier deals. The Leafs? 49.7 percent is 5 percentage points higher than the next-highest team: Tampa Bay?s 44.7 percent.

Link: https://theathletic.com/1210323/2019/09/14/can-the-leafs-win-with-their-current-cap-structure-after-signing-mitch-marner/

It's just a snapshot of this coming season, and there's no longitudinal analysis of teams that've made the Finals vs. those that've fallen short. But I think it's safe to conclude, since the Leafs are in uncharted territory, no team that's made the Final has had the Leaf's current cap structure.

Dom's bottom line is a "wait and see" -- a lot hinges on whether Marner did, in fact, re-set the market. If not, they're at a competitive disadvantage for the time being, even if they do avoid the bloated middle class and get a lot out of low-end contracts.

 

[herman]

I'm kind of okay with our team having 5-6 superstars locked in and I think the front office, while probably sour about the price at the moment, is pretty okay with making bets on this kind of talent rather than trading them out of spite. So we don't have the cap space to keep Gauthier and Aberg and Harpur in the lineup, or we can't go out and trade picks for Brian Boyle again? Oh noes.

Superstars elevate lesser players' performance just by virtue of playing on a high scoring team, so you're generating asset value either in trades or in cachet. The cap rises around these deals.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Few teams might have what the team has up front, but no other team is paying for it the way Toronto is... The Bruins aren?t spending 50 percent on Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand, David Pastrnak and Charlie McAvoy... You could go on and on throughout the league. The four highest-paid contracts take up 37 percent of a team?s cap hit on average, thanks to many other stars taking much friendlier deals. The Leafs? 49.7 percent is 5 percentage points higher than the next-highest team: Tampa Bay?s 44.7 percent.

But does Tampa not have a pretty big signing left to make and a goalie contract that's about to kick in? I mean, Point is surely going to bump into the top 4 considering 4th on the list is 6.75million and Vasilevsky at 9.5 will jump it up a considerable amount as well.
(Just reread the originaly quote. Noticed the up front part now)

I really do get that having the 4 players signed for such a large chunk of the salary cap is not a dream scenario but could we have expected much different when you have those four players?

 

[Zee]

Defence will be the big thing next year. Rielly signed, Dermott shouldn't be too much money on his next deal but then you have 4 spots and not alot of cap room to fill them. Obviously we're hoping Sandin and Liljegren are ready on their ELCs but that's no guarantee. Cross that bridge when we get to it I guess.

 

[Joe S.]

How are Bergeron and Marchand compatibles? They are 34 and 31 and signed their contracts years ago.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Defence will be the big thing next year. Rielly signed, Dermott shouldn't be too much money on his next deal but then you have 4 spots and not alot of cap room to fill them. Obviously we're hoping Sandin and Liljegren are ready on their ELCs but that's no guarantee. Cross that bridge when we get to it I guess.

This is why I feel this year will see a better product on the ice. Next year could very well be a different story. We also thought this year would see a big drop off, but as of now, I don't see it.

 

[mr grieves]

How are Bergeron and Marchand compatibles? They are 34 and 31 and signed their contracts years ago.

Bergeron and Marchand occupy the 1F and 2F slots on the Bruins' roster, just as Matthews and Tavares do on the Leafs' roster.

The contracts and players are not comparable, for the reason you note and others besides, but if we're comparing how the Leafs roster, as a thing that allocates cap % to different slots in the lineup, measures up against that of Bruins or any other team, they're comparable. They're just slots you fill with C.H.%.

 

[disco]

The real argument is that most RFA deals are gross underpays.

Yeah no other team has to do it, so it?s to Toronto?s current disadvantage, but Toronto has also locked up 3 of them for the next 5+ years with relatively clean sheets ahead while other teams have maybe one about to hit their old cap structures that are locked into veteran deals.

For sure, we're witnessing a re-structuring here. Superstars out of their ELC's, they're getting paid. GM's used to be able to get value there, not anymore. They wanted to make it a young man's league, plugging in all these ELC rockets zipping around, well that's exactly what they got.

The pluses:
- elevating others
- start of their prime and youth

These are the guys that you over pay for. Or an extremely rare #1 center or #1 defense-man UFA (Tavares). What will kill teams is overpaying elsewhere. I look at Kapanen and Johnsson. I think they got done so quick because the case was simply, here's how much we've got. Do you want to be a Leaf and win here? They both answering in the enthusiastic affirmative.

 

[herman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u-dZy9nOlo
MLHS Transcript
Dubas and Marner meet with the press at Training Camp to address the contract signing.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Mitch read the open letter and within three days, chose not to go over the tipping point.   Now let's go get the Cup.

I think he read my letter. 

 

[princedpw]

The real argument is that most RFA deals are gross underpays.

Yeah no other team has to do it, so it?s to Toronto?s current disadvantage, but Toronto has also locked up 3 of them for the next 5+ years with relatively clean sheets ahead while other teams have maybe one about to hit their old cap structures that are locked into veteran deals.

For sure, we're witnessing a re-structuring here. Superstars out of their ELC's, they're getting paid. GM's used to be able to get value there, not anymore. They wanted to make it a young man's league, plugging in all these ELC rockets zipping around, well that's exactly what they got.

The pluses:
- elevating others
- start of their prime and youth

These are the guys that you over pay for. Or an extremely rare #1 center or #1 defense-man UFA (Tavares). What will kill teams is overpaying elsewhere. I look at Kapanen and Johnsson. I think they got done so quick because the case was simply, here's how much we've got. Do you want to be a Leaf and win here? They both answering in the enthusiastic affirmative.

We can?t yet say whether we are witnessing a restructuring. We are going to have to wait until the other forward RFAs sign.  Only then will we know whether RFAs are generally getting paid more or if it is only the leafs.

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/MikeInBuffalo/status/1173021918687047682
Mike-in-Buffalo was one of the callers to Andy Frost's post-game that I'd always listen to. Very reasonable takes.

 

[princedpw]

I'm a bit stunned by the AAV, but definitely glad he's here for at least another six years. I'm not optimistic he can keep up the pace points-wise, but 80 points would still be elite territory.

I actually think he gets close to 100, and cracks it at least once. All the while leading the team in points in three of the next five years.

I certainly hope you are right. I do think there is quite a bit of potential for his pp points to increase. On the other hand, those primary assists 5-on-5 are poised to regress backwards a little.

 

[Kin]

For sure, we're witnessing a re-structuring here. Superstars out of their ELC's, they're getting paid. GM's used to be able to get value there, not anymore.

One lesson I'm definitely going to take away from the last year or so of diving into examining every single 2nd contract with a fine tooth comb is that we should never speak in absolutes about contracts in general. With the exception of the occasional Aleksander Barkov or Bobby Ryan every contract will have comps that make it look good and comps that make it look bad.

So when we look at what previous superstars made on their 2nd deals we sort of have to come to the same conclusion. It's a short list but even there there's a lot of variety.

To my mind there's really only 8 or 9 guys in the post-Lockout era who genuinely negotiated their second deals as superstars(although I may have missed someone) as opposed to just good players with 70 or so points. To me, the list is:

Crosby
Ovechkin
Malkin
Phaneuf
Karlsson
Stamkos
Doughty
McDavid
Staal(?)
Marner(???)

To me, that's it. We can laugh at Phaneuf now but his first three years were all top 10 Norris finishes and his third year saw him as a first team all-star. Staal is probably more genuinely up there(although that may be a result of the 05-06 season's fluky numbers) and whether Marner should be up there is a fair debate.

Anyways, of those 10 guys, Staal is the only one who signed for less than 10% of the cap. The rest range from 10.11%(Karlsson) all the way up to 17.30%(Crosby).

Marner and Matthews don't throw that off in any meaningful way. Matthews got about what Malkin got, Marner got less than half a percentage point above Phaneuf. Most of those second deals were also not for 7 or 8 years but 5 or 6.

So the Leafs guys definitely scored on the high side of the divide there but there's really no justification for saying that they're evidence that the way superstar young players get paid is drastically shifting.

 

[Kin]

We can?t yet say whether we are witnessing a restructuring. We are going to have to wait until the other forward RFAs sign.  Only then will we know whether RFAs are generally getting paid more or if it is only the leafs.

Maybe but we're not completely in the blind. We've got deals like the Aho deal, the Eichel deal, the Draisaitl deal.

And to be honest I'm not sure any of the remaining deals are going to tell us a ton. Laine, Point and Rantanen are all very good players but they all have situations around them that could very well throw off their value.

 

[herman]

I think Matthews counts for that superstar list. The Eichel deal is weird but I understood it for both sides.

 

[Kin]

I think Matthews counts for that superstar list. The Eichel deal is weird but I understood it for both sides.

Whether or not Marner should be there is definitely a fair question but personally I couldn't think of anyone else negotiating their second deal coming off a 90+ point season(other than Point).

edit: Backstrom, I suppose. But even then he got 11+ % and 10 years.

 

[herman]

I think Matthews counts for that superstar list. The Eichel deal is weird but I understood it for both sides.

Whether or not Marner should be there is definitely a fair question but personally I couldn't think of anyone else negotiating their second deal coming off a 90+ point season(other than Point).

edit: Backstrom, I suppose. But even then he got 11+ % and 10 years.

I think if the mainstream media talked about these contracts as cap %ages instead of raw AAV, fans would be a bit more understanding.

I think Marner?s team considered him part of that group, and Dubas considers him a step (or two) below and that was the chasm that needed to be bridged. Ultimately, ?overpaying? Marner during this window is more worthwhile than going through the sit or trade scenarios in which the Leafs lose tremendous value.

 

[princedpw]

We can?t yet say whether we are witnessing a restructuring. We are going to have to wait until the other forward RFAs sign.  Only then will we know whether RFAs are generally getting paid more or if it is only the leafs.

Maybe but we're not completely in the blind. We've got deals like the Aho deal, the Eichel deal, the Draisaitl deal.

And to be honest I'm not sure any of the remaining deals are going to tell us a ton. Laine, Point and Rantanen are all very good players but they all have situations around them that could very well throw off their value.

Well, Rantanen seems like the closest comparable to Marner that one can come up with. Let?s see what he signs for.  Point is potentially more valuable. I know there is the tax thing, but the thing is that Tampa can?t give him a no-trade clause so he can?t really guarantee a persistent tax advantage. (Also, why do they get a tax discount but Toronto gets no discount when dispensing signing bonuses? One could compute the real monetary benefit and it would be big.)

 

[Kin]

Well, Rantanen seems like the closest comparable to Marner that one can come up with. Let?s see what he signs for.

I think that one may be the most misleading. I think Rantanen is very good but we've never really seen him produce much away from one of the best offensive lines in hockey. As much as I like Tavares, he isn't what Mackinnon's been the last few years and Landeskog vs. Hyman is not much of a comparison. Throw in a ton more PP time and I think it's a bit of a superficial similarity.

Point is potentially more valuable. I know there is the tax thing, but the thing is that Tampa can?t give him a no-trade clause so he can?t really guarantee a persistent tax advantage. (Also, why do they get a tax discount but Toronto gets no discount when dispensing signing bonuses? One could compute the real monetary benefit and it would be big.)

Because other teams, including Tampa, also give out a lot of money in bonuses. 60 of Stamkos' 68 million is in signing bonuses and Kucherov got 44 million in bonuses. Aho's deal was 38 million in bonuses vs. 3 in salary.

Toronto front loads more money but I think the financial advantages there are overstated(especially for young players making their first big money).

Like I just fed some rough numbers into a calculator on it and the difference between Marner's deal as structured if he invests every cent and just getting 11 million a year and doing the same works out to about 1.6 million total over 6 years with a 6% ROI.