Mitch Marner: what now?

[dappleganger]

I hope Paul is happy he's managed to get a large portion of the fanbase turning on his kid.

Did I miss something? Did something happen? Did Anyone from the marner camp say anything at all?

I heard they told Dubas to go F a duck, and to call only when he's got a $88m cheque in hand for them.

Tough stance.

Can I interest you in a $78m check?

 

[princedpw]

Why is that ?good??  Why do you want the wealthiest players to get wealthier at the expense of the less wealthy players?

Phrase this another way: don't you want the best players to get wealthier at the expense of the worse players?

I actually don?t particularly want that.  It?s a philosophical thing, but I made the rules then player A (eg: the Goat) would not earn 10 times less than player B (eg: Marner/Matthews).  Matthews didn?t work 10 times harder than the goat (there isn?t that much time in the day). He might not have worked any harder at all. He was just born with some genetic gifts and lucked into a good developmental environment.  In a just world (obviously not the one we are living in), that kind of luck wouldn?t convey absurd differentials in material wealth.

All this is less of a big deal for professional athletes than people in other segments of society.  But still, I?m not hoping for further inequality in salary for the best players over the worst ones.  They are already absurdly unequal.

I?m not a republican.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Why is that ?good??  Why do you want the wealthiest players to get wealthier at the expense of the less wealthy players?

Phrase this another way: don't you want the best players to get wealthier at the expense of the worse players?

I actually don?t particularly want that.  It?s a philosophical thing, but I made the rules then player A (eg: the Goat) would not earn 10 times less than player B (eg: Marner/Matthews).  Matthews didn?t work 10 times harder than the goat (there isn?t that much time in the day). He might not have worked any harder at all. He was just born with some genetic gifts and lucked into a good developmental environment.  In a just world (obviously not the one we are living in), that kind of luck wouldn?t convey absurd differentials in material wealth.

All this is less of a big deal for professional athletes than people in other segments of society.  But still, I?m not hoping for further inequality in salary for the best players over the worst ones.  They are already absurdly unequal.

I?m not a republican.

I don't know..I think in some professions the most talented should make absurdly more money than the least talented.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I?m not a republican.

Haha, I appreciate your reasoning and see where you're coming from.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Marner somehow received five top-5 votes for the Selke trophy this year. I expected them to all be from Toronto-centric writers but I was wrong:

Kevin Allen (USA Today), Jason Brough (Athletic), Mark Lazerus (Athletic), Richard Morin (Arizona Republic), and Jim Thomas (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) all gave him votes. Thomas ranked him 3rd! 3rd! Every single one of those guys had him over Sasha freakin' Barkov.

 

[Zee]

Marner somehow received five top-5 votes for the Selke trophy this year. I expected them to all be from Toronto-centric writers but I was wrong:

Kevin Allen (USA Today), Jason Brough (Athletic), Mark Lazerus (Athletic), Richard Morin (Arizona Republic), and Jim Thomas (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) all gave him votes. Thomas ranked him 3rd! 3rd! Every single one of those guys had him over Sasha freakin' Barkov.

Paul Marner be like $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Zee]

The draft is tomorrow.  Let's make today Mitch Marner signing day.  Would set the tone for a good weekend.  Let's go boys, get er done!!

 

[herman]

Johnsson picked up a handful of homer picks for the Calder from local writers.

I thought the Marcus Pettersson votes were oopsies where they forgot Elias' first name, but they're real votes (they voted for Elias first)!

 

[disco]

I think he gets it. No way it's going to be another sitting situation like Willy. Just the reality of the biznass. You've got your core of Auston/Marner/Tavares, two superstar centers and a superstar winger. That's a hella core. That drives two lines. And all three are responsible defensively. Auston and Mitchy made huge strides in that area this year. The three 11-million-dollar men. The other 55% of your fills out your roster. Be creative, draft well, plug in with good role players. That's at least a five year cup window, I'm guessing more. First world problems The envy of most of the league. At the cap, but with young, in-their-prime core players.

And I think it is a respect/value thing. They see Matthews as their comparable, and it's a decent case. Not a center but he does so many things well and drives his line. If JT didn't come here and Naz and Mitchy played all year, Kadri definitely has a much better year.

The rough cap dollars where the Leafs most likely are moving forward:
Core($$$$): Matthews/Marner/Tavares - (2 star centers / star winger)
Sub-core($$$): Rielly*/Freddie* - (top D/top goalie/additional D)
Talented Support($$movable): Willy/Naz/Kappy/Johsson - (additional scoring)
Support($): The rest

* currently on value contracts

 

[ZBBM]

Yeah, I think we're inadvertently headed back to a Burkean future where the top six are players and the bottom 6 are plumbers.

In our case, they'll have to be literal plumbers or we won't be able to afford them.

On second thought, real plumbers are expensive.  We'll just have to fold the team.

 

[Bender]

A few thoughts that occurred to me last summer after I mulled over JT signing and the prediction/statement that Marner was going to
play with JT.....

- from the Leafs side, they had better sign him before last season even if it *appeared to be an over-pay* this past year

- If I was Marner I'm pretty sure I'm having a career year playing with JT so I'm signing anything.

Not exactly a genius take as it was pretty obvious if Leafs didn't sign him last summer that this was going to happen.

I'm still of the opinion that if a player believes he can outproduce his 2nd year that there is absolutely no incentive for that player to sign prior to finishing his 3rd year. Management obviously thinks signing the earlier the better and the players are smart enough to bet on themselves because you have so much more to gain than to lose. I have a hard time believing Dubas didn't want to get a deal done last summer.

 

[disco]

Yeah, I think we're inadvertently headed back to a Burkean future where the top six are players and the bottom 6 are plumbers.

In our case, they'll have to be literal plumbers or we won't be able to afford them.

On second thought, real plumbers are expensive.  We'll just have to fold the team.

lol! Yeah the Burkean dynamic is different this time because Kyle has actual SUPERSTARS to plug in. Burke just didn't have the horses, he did what he could with his bombastic moves but this time Dubas is mining what I would argue as his two first-overall draft picks. Auston and Marner (who could go 1st in any other year that doesn't have McDavid/Eichel in it). It's just worlds apart. Burkie had Phil and Naz/Bozie. Led to one round of fool's gold over 6 years.

 

[disco]

A few thoughts that occurred to me last summer after I mulled over JT signing and the prediction/statement that Marner was going to
play with JT.....

- from the Leafs side, they had better sign him before last season even if it *appeared to be an over-pay* this past year

- If I was Marner I'm pretty sure I'm having a career year playing with JT so I'm signing anything.

Not exactly a genius take as it was pretty obvious if Leafs didn't sign him last summer that this was going to happen.

I'm still of the opinion that if a player believes he can outproduce his 2nd year that there is absolutely no incentive for that player to sign prior to finishing his 3rd year. Management obviously thinks signing the earlier the better and the players are smart enough to bet on themselves because you have so much more to gain than to lose. I have a hard time believing Dubas didn't want to get a deal done last summer.

Agreed, I'm almost certain both Auston and Mitch turned down any offer after their 2nd year with the response of "just gonna play out the last year of my ELC, then we'll talk." Betting on themselves sort of thing. And with their maturity and desire to improve, a wise move. I'm sure Kyle will have him signed before camp. Mitch will get his too.

 

[princedpw]

I see. For me, it's not about "deserves."

Well, I think it should be to some extent or another. I think in any negotiation of this sort a player should be able to try and figure out what revenues they're generating and figure out what their fair cut of that is. A jersey sold for a RFA player or a ticket to watch that player doesn't generate less revenue for the NHL then that of a UFA player so a player is under no obligation to pretend otherwise when trying to figure out his value.

... I agree with that one --- because the players have agreed to compensation system in which all teams must operate in the same salary window and because that window is defined by league-wide revenues rather than team-by-team revenues, it makes sense that individual player compensation is defined by league-wide revenues rather than individual team revenues. 

I think saying the players "agreed" to those systems when they were the result of pretty ethically dubious lockouts is a stretch but even beyond that all that was in the agreed to CBAs was that teams like the Rangers and Leafs are allowed to hamstring themselves via total compensation if they choose. Short of the maximum salary, there's nothing restricting what players can ask from a particular team.

Likewise, the Leafs are more than free to take the opposing negotiating position. It doesn't generally seem to be working very well for them because it's indulging in a fiction. It's a simple fact of reality that hockey players are "worth" more in certain markets than in others. The NHL's decision to not acknowledge that in their CBA is not something the players are morally obligated to have tie their hands in negotiations.
[/quote]

I really don't care to argue about this but since a player's value isn't preserved when they are traded, I don't really see it as "their value." 

Anyway, if we are primarily talking about tools used to predict how much a player is going to make then I don't think the observation that Toronto makes more money than almost all other franchises combined is useful.  I have never read a reputable report on how contracts are negotiated that has suggested that agents argue that players playing in Toronto should receive more money because the Toronto franchise makes a lot of money.  Instead, all the reporting I have read indicates that both agents and teams draw up a set of comparable players from around the league and use their percentage *cap hit* (stable across teams) at the time of signing to negotiate contracts.

Bottom line is that he projected 7 million on a 6- or 7-year deal, which was spot on.  (He also projected the dollar amount for a bridge contract.)  He obtained that by taking a range of comparables from Draisaitl as a bit of an outlier on the high end to Ehlers and Drouin on the low end. 

Mirtle's a clever guy, not clever enough for me to want to buy a membership in the Athletic but still, and I'm glad his projection was close to reality. I think that's vastly different than a lot of the people who were here and exclusively using guys like Ehlers and Pastrnak as comparisons and thought the idea of Nylander at 7 was outrageous.

I never made any serious predictions for what Nylander got, all I said was that a range of comparisons were valid and I wouldn't be surprised if his deal came down within that range.

At the end of the day, it looks like a fair contract for Marner based on historical comparables is somewhere between 11-12 percent of the cap on a long-term deal, which would be between $9-10 million. With Kane and Draisaitl as his closest comparables, it?s difficult to imagine him getting much less than 11 percent of the cap ($9.1 million), but it?s also hard to find evidence that he?s worth more than 12 percent ($9.9 million).

If he signs a six-year deal with Toronto, it will probably end up on the lower end of this spectrum (closer to $9 million), whereas an eight-year deal would push his AAV to the higher end of the spectrum (closer to $10 million).

I said this during the Nylander thing, it's super easy to make cases for just about any number. For instance, you say yourself that Kane is one of Marner's best comparables. And the 2nd deal Kane signed was a 5 year deal, worth 11.09% of the cap. Kane didn't sign his deal after his 88 point season. He signed it on Dec. 2nd, 2009. To date, Kane's best season total was 70 points. As best as I can tell, when Kane signed his deal he was on a 82 point pace, having scored 26 points in 26 games.

So what does that deal really tell us? Marner, coming off a better season than Kane had ever had or was projected to have(15% more scoring!) and presumably negotiating for more than three extra UFA years couldn't possibly think he should get 13.5% of the cap as opposed to 11%? If I were Marner's agent I'd think that three extra years of UFA service being only worth a 1% bump on the cap hit was unreasonable and that's before we even got to my notion about player's worth varying by market.

Anyway that's me just using one example you provided. Do you really doubt I could look back and find others that build a "reasonable" case for 11 million?

Regardless, my belief that 11 million is a perfectly believable outcome really isn't based on making a case for one other over another or historical precedent. Just that it seems to be what Marner wants and I really tend to think teams rather than players are the ones who are more likely to give in these negotiations. I've made this point before but it's much easier for Marner to find another hockey team than for the Leafs to find another player as good as Marner.

If you don't think it's reasonable for Marner to get 11 million and that he's going to be reading the Athletic articles for a definition of his worth as opposed to trying to get a fair cut of the giant amount of revenues the Leafs are generating then that's fair enough but I think the Nylander and Matthews deals tell us you're probably in for a disappointment. Personally, I'm going to go back to thinking that any number in between the low end and the high end is possible.

Just for clarity:  The thing above that you quoted from me was a quote from Ian Tulloch. 

My point is that historically, the Athletic has predicted player contracts well (small sample size; they could be wrong this time!) and you seem to agree that they have done a reasonable job.  Their prediction for Marner on a 6+ year deal is in the 9-10 million range. 

On Kane, the reason that Tulloch thinks it is a good comparable is that if you rank both Kane and Marner in terms of points/game vs the rest of the league, they are similar:

Kane: 
Year 1: 42nd in the league in points/game
Year 2: 45th
Year 3: 14th

Marner:
Year 1: 42nd in the league in points/game
Year 2: 53rd
Year 3: 15th

League-wide scoring was up last year.  Relative to his peers, Marner is extremely similar to Kane (relative to his peers).

But more importantly, Tulloch's projection is not based on just one comparable.  He also includes 4 others including Draisaitl who was 10th pts/game in year 3 of his contract and received 11.3% of the cap, but crucially, not Matthews. 

As a projection tool, the thing that worries me the most about Tulloch's article is the fact that he is using the league-wide ranking of the players.  It is unclear to me whether this metric (though I think it is quite sensible and fair to all parties) will be adopted in negotiations.  That's where a significant amount of my uncertainty lies.  Other sources of uncertainty:

* will Marner get an offer sheet?  (I think it is likely that Marner offer sheet possibilities are entirely media-driven but I can't help being nervous.)

* will Marner hold out claiming Matthews is the only comparable.  This seems unreasonable to me personally, but I naturally have no idea what Marner is thinking.

Tulloch also discusses the winger vs center debate.  It's an interesting and lengthy article.  I encourage you to sign up for the Athletic!  The reporting there is a really significant cut above any other outlet I know of.  I think you would enjoy it.  (I am not James Mirtle!)

 

[princedpw]

Yeah, I think we're inadvertently headed back to a Burkean future where the top six are players and the bottom 6 are plumbers.

In our case, they'll have to be literal plumbers or we won't be able to afford them.

On second thought, real plumbers are expensive.  We'll just have to fold the team.

lol! Yeah the Burkean dynamic is different this time because Kyle has actual SUPERSTARS to plug in. Burke just didn't have the horses, he did what he could with his bombastic moves but this time Dubas is mining what I would argue as his two first-overall draft picks. Auston and Marner (who could go 1st in any other year that doesn't have McDavid/Eichel in it). It's just worlds apart. Burkie had Phil and Naz/Bozie. Led to one round of fool's gold over 6 years.

Marner was picked fourth ... 

 

[cabber24]

Kane is a great comparable but Marner played with Tavares and teams also had to choose against matching their best against the Matthews or Tavares line. Marner is no doubt a stellar player but let's not forget how much his environment contributed to his success.

 

[princedpw]

Kane is a great comparable but Marner played with Tavares and teams also had to choose against matching their best against the Matthews or Tavares line. Marner is no doubt a stellar player but let's not forget how much his environment contributed to his success.

I agree.  I don't know who Kane played with.  I do wonder how much Tavares contributed to Marner's year.  Said another way:  I wonder what would have happened if Marner played with Kadri all year and the Leafs had used Tavares to elevate other wingers.  But we'll never know. 

The thing is, while we take such things as linemates into account when arguing about how good a player is, I'm not sure how much they factor into contract negotiations.  The problem is that it's really difficult to tease apart a player from his linemates and so my guess is that it will be hard for the Leafs to use that to drive down Marner's salary.  In other words, it just won't work and it won't matter when it comes to the contract.

 

[Bates]

Kane is a great comparable but Marner played with Tavares and teams also had to choose against matching their best against the Matthews or Tavares line. Marner is no doubt a stellar player but let's not forget how much his environment contributed to his success.

I agree.  I don't know who Kane played with.  I do wonder how much Tavares contributed to Marner's year.  Said another way:  I wonder what would have happened if Marner played with Kadri all year and the Leafs had used Tavares to elevate other wingers.  But we'll never know. 

The thing is, while we take such things as linemates into account when arguing about how good a player is, I'm not sure how much they factor into contract negotiations.  The problem is that it's really difficult to tease apart a player from his linemates and so my guess is that it will be hard for the Leafs to use that to drive down Marner's salary.  In other words, it just won't work and it won't matter when it comes to the contract.

Do you expect either of Kapanen or Johnsson to get paid as 20 goal scorers or 40 point players or do you think their linemates will be considered? Hayes just got over $7 million and barely outperforms either.

 

[Kin]

Anyway, if we are primarily talking about tools used to predict how much a player is going to make then I don't think the observation that Toronto makes more money than almost all other franchises combined is useful.

I feel like we're primarily talking about what determines a player's value, or at least how they perceive their value, and I think to that end the financial means of who they're negotiating with absolutely play a part in that.

League-wide scoring was up last year.  Relative to his peers, Marner is extremely similar to Kane (relative to his peers).

Again, Kane didn't sign his deal after his third year but midway through it. Regardless though, this is a simple question. If Marner is a good comparable for Kane, and Kane signed a deal worth 11% of the cap over 5 years, is it completely unreasonable that Marner would be looking for an 8 year deal at 13.5% of the cap? Is that 2.5% the difference between reasonable and unreasonable? Given what we're seeing on the free agent market, is it unreasonable for Marner to think that he'd get 11+ million for his UFA years?

If the only thing we're doing is picking isolated cases from the past and comparing them on a pretty flimsy metric I don't think we're doing much to actually get at why players get paid what they do or how they might value themselves.

Tulloch also discusses the winger vs center debate.  It's an interesting and lengthy article.  I encourage you to sign up for the Athletic!  The reporting there is a really significant cut above any other outlet I know of.  I think you would enjoy it.  (I am not James Mirtle!)

I really wouldn't. I have no interest in the VC business model applied to the sports pages and I've never heard of a single Athletic story being discussed that really interests me.

 

[Kin]

Kane is a great comparable but Marner played with Tavares and teams also had to choose against matching their best against the Matthews or Tavares line. Marner is no doubt a stellar player but let's not forget how much his environment contributed to his success.

I agree.  I don't know who Kane played with. 

Dobber has Kane as primarily playing with Toews that year, with Troy Brouwer being the third wheel most of the time. That actually makes it pretty comparable to Hyman-Tavares-Marner. Especially when you figure that it means that Chicago also had another very good offensive line in Hossa-Ladd-Sharp that teams had to worry about.