Matt Martin signs with the Leafs [4 years, $2.5mil AAV]

[Zee]

Bernier was set straight after watching Invictus. Now he knows that Matt Damon is Nelson Mandela

[emoji3] [emoji3]

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

So a lot of the negativity I've seen elsewhere in the blogosphere surrounding this has come from people saying that having a guy like Martin isn't really a deterrent because teams with bruisers still have guys get run and therefore the idea of the deterrent is a fallacy etc.

That seems reasonable to me, but on the other side of the argument, you hear people who have played the game, coached the game and are currently doing both all say that having a few guys that keep the opposition honest, is worth its weight in gold in terms of team morale.

The story goes that the reason you can't truly quantify the number of times guys don't get run because of imposing teammates because you don't see it not happen and also, guys do appreciate going out there knowing that if things go south they'll have a few players on the team they can lean on, the same way the team leans on them when they need game breaking.

That also makes sense to me and it seems like there are too many people saying it for it to be completely baseless, where do you all stand on it?

Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

 

[Bonsixx]

So a lot of the negativity I've seen elsewhere in the blogosphere surrounding this has come from people saying that having a guy like Martin isn't really a deterrent because teams with bruisers still have guys get run and therefore the idea of the deterrent is a fallacy etc.

That seems reasonable to me, but on the other side of the argument, you hear people who have played the game, coached the game and are currently doing both all say that having a few guys that keep the opposition honest, is worth its weight in gold in terms of team morale.

The story goes that the reason you can't truly quantify the number of times guys don't get run because of imposing teammates because you don't see it not happen and also, guys do appreciate going out there knowing that if things go south they'll have a few players on the team they can lean on, the same way the team leans on them when they need game breaking.

That also makes sense to me and it seems like there are too many people saying it for it to be completely baseless, where do you all stand on it?

Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

Players are human, and it's only natural they'd feel better about "going to war" with players like Martin. Whatever Martin's underlying numbers look like, maybe his mere presence eases the mind of the better players enough that it makes some sort of difference in their own games? Maybe not, but the players themselves seem to love having guys like that on the roster. Keep the stars happy and whatnot.

Also, on a personal level, considering hockey is supposedly entertainment (the last decade notwithstanding), I'm looking forward to watching the young skilled guys and I'm also looking forward to watching Martin crush a few people with bodychecks.

 

[bustaheims]

That also makes sense to me and it seems like there are too many people saying it for it to be completely baseless, where do you all stand on it?

Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

I don't think having guys like Martin is a deterrent in any way, nor do I believe they do anything to keep the opposition "honest." I don't think they're preventing "guys from getting run" because A) they're not usually on the ice with the guys they're supposedly on the roster to protect and B) most of the hits that we think of as bad/predatory hits are spur of the moment/opportunity type hits that are delivered without the time to really consider the implications.

I do believe that players/coaches/other hockey types have been conditioned to the point that there's a potential psychological impact of having someone like that on the roster, and that could have some impact on confidence/comfort level on the ice - but, that's about it.

 

[TBLeafer]

So a lot of the negativity I've seen elsewhere in the blogosphere surrounding this has come from people saying that having a guy like Martin isn't really a deterrent because teams with bruisers still have guys get run and therefore the idea of the deterrent is a fallacy etc.

That seems reasonable to me, but on the other side of the argument, you hear people who have played the game, coached the game and are currently doing both all say that having a few guys that keep the opposition honest, is worth its weight in gold in terms of team morale.

The story goes that the reason you can't truly quantify the number of times guys don't get run because of imposing teammates because you don't see it not happen and also, guys do appreciate going out there knowing that if things go south they'll have a few players on the team they can lean on, the same way the team leans on them when they need game breaking.

That also makes sense to me and it seems like there are too many people saying it for it to be completely baseless, where do you all stand on it?

Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

I think a tangible study can be done regarding frequency of teams taking unhealthy runs at goalies, dirty cheap shots at players, etc. on teams without a tough, bruiser type, vs the frequency of that same kind of behaviour happening on teams that have them.

Speaking from experience, you do love to have a guy like Martin in the room and as player it does make you FEEL safer out there knowing you got a guy like that around who has your back.

How well does boosting player confidence affect how effective that player is on the ice, if your talking about a skilled guy?

 

[herman]

So a lot of the negativity I've seen elsewhere in the blogosphere surrounding this has come from people saying that having a guy like Martin isn't really a deterrent because teams with bruisers still have guys get run and therefore the idea of the deterrent is a fallacy etc.

That seems reasonable to me, but on the other side of the argument, you hear people who have played the game, coached the game and are currently doing both all say that having a few guys that keep the opposition honest, is worth its weight in gold in terms of team morale.

The story goes that the reason you can't truly quantify the number of times guys don't get run because of imposing teammates because you don't see it not happen and also, guys do appreciate going out there knowing that if things go south they'll have a few players on the team they can lean on, the same way the team leans on them when they need game breaking.

That also makes sense to me and it seems like there are too many people saying it for it to be completely baseless, where do you all stand on it?

Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

My issue with this signing has less to do with Martin as a player/deterrent and more to do with the fact that Management got into a free agent bidding war over him. Granted he's not that expensive for his production in a limited role, and we could see him hit career numbers the way Komarov did if he lines up next to guys without concrete mitts. The Islanders fans were pretty irate that he signed at such a low number and wondered why they couldn't have retained him.

My initial feeling is that he will be serviceable and probably a fanbase favourite in a similar vein to Rich Clune because he's a bit of an everyman with a personality and a sense of humour. I don't think his presence on the ice will prevent anything bad from happening (<10 minutes), but he could still be a strong influence in the dressing room with his experience and insider knowledge of how to get under people's skin (and prevent it), which would be good for Nylander, Marner, and other smaller fry.

 

[TBLeafer]

So a lot of the negativity I've seen elsewhere in the blogosphere surrounding this has come from people saying that having a guy like Martin isn't really a deterrent because teams with bruisers still have guys get run and therefore the idea of the deterrent is a fallacy etc.

That seems reasonable to me, but on the other side of the argument, you hear people who have played the game, coached the game and are currently doing both all say that having a few guys that keep the opposition honest, is worth its weight in gold in terms of team morale.

The story goes that the reason you can't truly quantify the number of times guys don't get run because of imposing teammates because you don't see it not happen and also, guys do appreciate going out there knowing that if things go south they'll have a few players on the team they can lean on, the same way the team leans on them when they need game breaking.

That also makes sense to me and it seems like there are too many people saying it for it to be completely baseless, where do you all stand on it?

Is the answer somewhere in the middle?

My issue with this signing has less to do with Martin as a player/deterrent and more to do with the fact that Management got into a free agent bidding war over him. Granted he's not that expensive for his production in a limited role, and we could see him hit career numbers the way Komarov did if he lines up next to guys without concrete mitts. The Islanders fans were pretty irate that he signed at such a low number and wondered why they couldn't have retained him.

My initial feeling is that he will be serviceable and probably a fanbase favourite in a similar vein to Rich Clune because he's a bit of an everyman with a personality and a sense of humour. I don't think his presence on the ice will prevent anything bad from happening (<10 minutes), but he could still be a strong influence in the dressing room with his experience and insider knowledge of how to get under people's skin (and prevent it), which would be good for Nylander, Marner, and other smaller fry.

Can we truly say it was a bidding war?  Or did they just offer him a contract they thought would be a solid offer?

 

[Kin]

The story goes that the reason you can't truly quantify the number of times guys don't get run because of imposing teammates because you don't see it not happen...

Ok, so let's say that's true. If a player like Martin truly does affect the way opposing players play then you would be able to see it in other ways. We'd see, for instance, a year to year difference for when the Leafs had a player like that vs. when they didn't. Or, alternately, we'd see a difference in how the Leafs played against teams who had a player like that vs. ones that didn't.

I legitimately can't say in my time as a hockey fan I've ever noticed anything like that. I certainly don't think anyone ever said something like "Well, the Leafs aren't going to go after the Islanders tonight...Matt Martin is in the lineup".

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

The story goes that the reason you can't truly quantify the number of times guys don't get run because of imposing teammates because you don't see it not happen...

Ok, so let's say that's true. If a player like Martin truly does affect the way opposing players play then you would be able to see it in other ways. We'd see, for instance, a year to year difference for when the Leafs had a player like that vs. when they didn't. Or, alternately, we'd see a difference in how the Leafs played against teams who had a player like that vs. ones that didn't.

I legitimately can't say in my time as a hockey fan I've ever noticed anything like that. I certainly don't think anyone ever said something like "Well, the Leafs aren't going to go after the Islanders tonight...Matt Martin is in the lineup".

Yeah, and as I alluded to in my post, I see the merit in what you're saying.

I guess my question is, why does the "deterrent" myth permeate the game to the extent that it does?

I mean I can see it being as Busta mentioned that players and coaches have been conditioned to feel this way, but it does seem like the idea is so pervasive that there has to be at least a little something to it.

I don't see the incentive for so many to be so dishonest so often.

I wonder if it's more of just a mental thing as opposed to anything else.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, and as I alluded to in my post, I see the merit in what you're saying.

I guess my question is, why does the "deterrent" myth permeate the game to the extent that it does?

I mean I can see it being as Busta mentioned that players and coaches have been conditioned to feel this way, but it does seem like the idea is so pervasive that there has to be at least a little something to it.

I don't see the incentive for so many to be so dishonest so often.

I wonder if it's more of just a mental thing as opposed to anything else.

I don't think anyone is being dishonest, I just think that any insular and conservative community is going to be resistant to conventional wisdom being challenged. Look at the uphill struggle the analytics community had trying to sell the League on possession as a metric or "Hey, maybe slow guys who can't skate aren't ideal defenders".

Back in the 70's I think that if a player took a run at a star you might very well see that team's enforcer start throwing at that guy regardless of their consent. That, to my mind, might create a degree of apprehension. If I'm a pest/rat and I know a John Wensink type will pound on me if I take a run at a player it might modify my behaviour.

But that's no longer true. Post-Steve Moore if a player doesn't want to fight, he doesn't. So if a Cam Janssen takes a run at Tomas Kaberle then his only consequence is if he chooses to fight and, being as Cam Janssen doesn't mind fighting, it's not really much of a deterrent.

That shift occurred a while ago but that doesn't mean that attitudes necessarily changed with it.

 

[Tigger]

An interesting point about Martin's contract that tempers my expectations some is how they've structured the bonuses. Technically, after July 2 next year there will be 3 years remaining with only 5 mil left to pay out. Likely very moveable on that basis.

http://www.generalfanager.com/players/1327

                NHL Salary          Signing Bonus

2016-17  $3,500,000  ?  ?  $2,500,000 
2017-18  $2,500,000  ?  ?  $1,500,000 
2018-19  $2,250,000  ?  ?  $1,500,000 
2019-20  $1,750,000  ?  ?  $1,000,000 

 

[herman]

Dredging this up because it's pretty much time for a season assessment.

https://theleafsnation.com/2017/05/31/is-matt-martin-actually-good-defensively/

TL;dr: Nope.

This is where the free agency period took a turn for me (and then Polak happened). I can see why a large segment of the fanbase liked these moves, as they grew up on Don Cherryisms for the most part.

He's legitimately a good dude, and it was fun to see him hanging out with Marner and sharing style tips with JvR et al.

After a full season, where he played all 82 games (kudos), I just don't see the on-ice value.

He forces the 4th line style to play one way (thanks, Babcock), at the expense of all our extra forwards who played a different (better?) way. Maybe it's good for the team to have a couple of different looks throughout the lineup, and I can't argue against how effective the 4th line looked at times down the stretch when Boyle and Kapanen settled in, but what I can argue is that neither Boyle nor Kapanen are actually 4th line players, so duh the 4th line got better.

Anyway, let's fight about this help me change my mind because there's three more years to go.

 

[Bates]

I don't think US internet folks really have that good of a grasp of the things that go on with a hockey team and a hockey player.  I'm comfortable taking the word of Matthews and Marner when they offer how much Martin means to them and the team.  There are many intangibles that make a team better and sometimes a guy like Martin can mean a little more than his ability should.  I doubt it will be that way for next 3 years though as the kids grow.

 

[herman]

There's a lot that's bred into hockey culture that would lead them to believe deterrence and on-ice justice are both necessary and effective. We also have to remember that there's what I'd term as a weird extended adolescence that is part of professional athletics: these guys usually come through from junior high school all the way up to their draft/junior days playing a testosterone-infused mini traveling army lifestyle. There are a lot of well spoken hockey players who think beyond the game, but I'm pretty sure the bulk of them aren't in hockey for the philosophy of the sport. Put more bluntly, I think there's a lot of factors that point to most hockey players being very mature in specific aspects of their lives, and very immature in the majority of the other aspects.

It's a larger socio-cultural question that exceeds the scope of the Matt Martin discussion, but he is our focal point for it on this team as the designated flyswatter.

So how effective was he truly at 'keeping the flies off', limiting facewashes, and pumping up the kids? Worth the term and cap hit knowing that these kids are pumping out 3-5M collectively in bonuses every year of their ELCs? Did they need shepherds as they rose through the ranks of junior and European mens leagues?

Obviously I stand on the side that says, nah. I don't think our kids would have quit the sport if Martin wasn't there; I'm pretty sure they would've played just as well. We would've probably had a few more goals out of Leivo, or Griffith, or Holland, fringe as they are. Maybe we wouldn't have had to pony up for Boyle if our 4th line was a semi-skilled hardworking line of Soshnikov/Leivo - Holland/Gauthier - Hyman that could actually put the puck in the net occasionally.

 

[digdug]

Whether we think Matt Martin is a good fit or not really doesn't matter

Babcock and the management crew obviously like him and value him.
They value him enough they decided to go ahead and resign Ben Smith just so they can protect Martin from being exposed in the expansion draft.

He will be here whether we want him or not.

Personally I'm ok with it either way. He can stay or go.  I don't think it really will matter to the team's success either way.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Personally I'm ok with it either way. He can stay or go.  I don't think it really will matter to the team's success either way.

The Leafs were a single point away from avoiding a 1st round match-up against Washington and playing Ottawa instead. They played THIRTY-SIX games with Ben Smith and Matt Martin as 2/3's of their 4th line. I have a hard time believing that playing Holland and Leivo in those spots wouldn't have earned us an extra point somewhere along the way. Every single roster spot matters.

That's right. I'm taking this stance. The Leafs could have still been playing hockey right now if it wasn't for Matt Martin.

 

[Kin]

Whether we think Matt Martin is a good fit or not really doesn't matter

I'm always genuinely puzzled by responses like this. You get that this is a discussion forum centered around the Toronto Maple Leafs, right? We're here to share our opinions about the Leafs. I hate to break it to you but none of it "matters" in the sense of affecting what the people who run the team do.

 

[Bates]

I can get the logic that a better player than Martin might have gotten us another point as some point but I just can't get that logic with Holland??  He's no better of an NHL'er than Martin is and actually offers even less to the equation.

Personally I'm ok with it either way. He can stay or go.  I don't think it really will matter to the team's success either way.

The Leafs were a single point away from avoiding a 1st round match-up against Washington and playing Ottawa instead. They played THIRTY-SIX games with Ben Smith and Matt Martin as 2/3's of their 4th line. I have a hard time believing that playing Holland and Leivo in those spots wouldn't have earned us an extra point somewhere along the way. Every single roster spot matters.

That's right. I'm taking this stance. The Leafs could have still been playing hockey right now if it wasn't for Matt Martin.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I can get the logic that a better player than Martin might have gotten us another point as some point but I just can't get that logic with Holland??  He's no better of an NHL'er than Martin is and actually offers even less to the equation.

It'd be Holland vs. Ben Smith.

 

[Bates]

Same answer.

I can get the logic that a better player than Martin might have gotten us another point as some point but I just can't get that logic with Holland??  He's no better of an NHL'er than Martin is and actually offers even less to the equation.

It'd be Holland vs. Ben Smith.