Mitch Marner: what now?

[Kin]

I dont care whether the deals are good for leaf players ? really, it?s the opposite. I hope they are ?terrible? for a given individual and help the leafs acquire more talent, increasing their chance to win (and of course that simultaneously the players are happy and want to stay and give great discounts on future deals).

I mean, you should probably care about those things if you're trying to accurately read the market or pick up on trends. And, I mean, ideally you wouldn't be so laser-focused on the Leafs winning that you'd want guys to be underpaid relative to what they're worth but that's another discussion.

On McDavid, yes, I think he gave more of a discount than Matthews.  That?s still true if Matthews could have squeezed more. 

That's great, but I didn't say Matthews gave an equal discount or whatever. I was just rejecting the notion that he signed for as much as he possibly could have gotten.

In the Matthews extension thread, you suggested the following contracts:

What I also said in that thread a post or two down was that Matthews may feel like he wasn't in the best negotiating position and that if he came back with a stronger year he'd be able to throw his weight around even more. He did and, well, he did.

That said, I was off with how I read the market to be shaping up. If you only point here was "The guys on the Maple Leafs signed with X, I would like it if they signed for less than X" then so be it but I thought, in the context of bringing up the Pastrnak/Mackinnon deals, it was helpful to go into why Matthews/Nylander signed for what they did and why a reading of the market that was more informed by the McDavid and Eichel deals ended up being wrong. I don't think either Nylander and Matthews signed for some sort of number that was outrageous given what they've done(or represented the very upper limit of what they could have gotten) but I do think their deals were informed by looking at deals like Mackinnon and Pastrnak and wanting to avoid those same mistakes.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

You know I think it's kinda messed up that the media is taking Marner's CHARITY golf tournament as an opportunity to ask him questions about his contract negotiations when he's obviously just going to give canned answers like "I want to be a Leaf and hopefully my agent works things out" (which is literally exactly what he ended up saying obviously). I wasn't going to say anything at first, but now I've found out that they asked Michael Dal Colle what his thoughts on the Marner situation is. MICHAEL DAL COLLE! Like come on, just focus on the charity for one day people.

https://twitter.com/markhmasters/status/1152053865581297664

 

[princedpw]

If you only point here was "The guys on the Maple Leafs signed with X, I would like it if they signed for less than X" then so be it ...

That?s really all it was. There were other guys that, relatively speaking, who signed for less. (McDavid is a good example because everyone agrees he is the way better player and the rumors were that Matthews on an 8-year deal would have been significantly more than McDavid.). So Matthews deal, while not ?unreasonable,? still skews neutral or high rather than skews low ? many (all?) smart commentators (not just you) expected a lower dollar amount given the term so it?s easy for me to imagine a world in which his price comes in lower, even at the time he signed it.  But if he had signed a cheaper deal after 2 years instead of waiting for 3 then that too would be a preferable alternate universe. 

 

[Kin]

(McDavid is a good example because everyone agrees he is the way better player and the rumors were that Matthews on an 8-year deal would have been significantly more than McDavid.)

McDavid is also a good example of what I'm saying. His deal would be exhibit A for any competent agent in trying to convince a top young player not to sign a deal like it. Not only did he leave money on the table but what's gone on in Edmonton since not only shows that leaving money on the table in no way guarantees that the team uses it to actually make the team more competitive but just the general bad idea of tying yourself to a team with no recourse for 8 years.

 

[Zee]

You know I think it's kinda messed up that the media is taking Marner's CHARITY golf tournament as an opportunity to ask him questions about his contract negotiations when he's obviously just going to give canned answers like "I want to be a Leaf and hopefully my agent works things out" (which is literally exactly what he ended up saying obviously). I wasn't going to say anything at first, but now I've found out that they asked Michael Dal Colle what his thoughts on the Marner situation is. MICHAEL DAL COLLE! Like come on, just focus on the charity for one day people.

https://twitter.com/markhmasters/status/1152053865581297664

I mean the only reason the event is even on and being covered by media is the fact that Marner is a hockey player for the Leafs. If it were Mitch Smith putting on this event you wouldn't even know about it.

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/LeafsLunch1050/status/1152224617290981376

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/account4hockey/status/1152279992656699392

Stay with me on this: Sports play-by-play announcers for a game of competitive broken telephone.

 

[Zee]

https://twitter.com/account4hockey/status/1152279992656699392

Stay with me on this: Sports play-by-play announcers for a game of competitive broken telephone.

So one guy says Shanahan nixed a deal and now another guy says Shanahan is coming in to make a deal. Tune in tomorrow for another thrilling episode of "How the Marner's turn"

 

[Phileas Fogg]

The Nylander negotiation was interesting toward the end cause it actually had some consequence (relative to the eligibility cutoff).

The media manufacturing on this one is just insane. There's still months until camp. I feel dumber having read any of it; it's just Jerry Springer level garbage at this point.

 

[nutman]

Say what you want but before I leave on my vacation, I need to say this.  I think all the players today are greedy, I think Marner should take at most 6.5 for 7-8 yrs up front like the usual, then in his next deal he goes after the bigger money.  This way all the players can be signed to a fair deal leaving the team to build a contender for years to come. So say at the end of the day when the deal is signed Mitch has 40 mil to toss in the bank, what the heck is wrong with that. invest well and he is set for life plus he would still have a better payday in 7-8 years. and some very nice rings i am sure of.

But we all know shit does not work that way anymore.  so I will still hope for 8.5 and a cheap one year deal to grab Gardner, then I would say we will be "thee team" to beat for the cup.

Cheers and enjoy your summer everyone..

 

[sickbeast]

Say what you want but before I leave on my vacation, I need to say this.  I think all the players today are greedy, I think Marner should take at most 6.5 for 7-8 yrs up front like the usual, then in his next deal he goes after the bigger money.  This way all the players can be signed to a fair deal leaving the team to build a contender for years to come. So say at the end of the day when the deal is signed Mitch has 40 mil to toss in the bank, what the heck is wrong with that. invest well and he is set for life plus he would still have a better payday in 7-8 years. and some very nice rings i am sure of.

But we all know shit does not work that way anymore.  so I will still hope for 8.5 and a cheap one year deal to grab Gardner, then I would say we will be "thee team" to beat for the cup.

Cheers and enjoy your summer everyone..

Have a great vacation.

 

[Kin]

I think Marner should take at most 6.5 for 7-8 yrs up front like the usual, then in his next deal he goes after the bigger money...So say at the end of the day when the deal is signed Mitch has 40 mil to toss in the bank, what the heck is wrong with that.

This is not how money works.

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/markhmasters/status/1152309339883036672
Nice little interview with Naz at Mitchy's event.

 

[4EVRLEAFAN]

I think Marner should take at most 6.5 for 7-8 yrs up front like the usual, then in his next deal he goes after the bigger money...So say at the end of the day when the deal is signed Mitch has 40 mil to toss in the bank, what the heck is wrong with that.

This is not how spoiled little brats work.

FIFY

 

[Andy007]

I think Marner should take at most 6.5 for 7-8 yrs up front like the usual, then in his next deal he goes after the bigger money...So say at the end of the day when the deal is signed Mitch has 40 mil to toss in the bank, what the heck is wrong with that.

This is not how spoiled little brats work.

FIFY

Marner has the skill and track record to make significantly much more than $6.5 million playing in a league that generates revenue, on a yearly basis, in the billions, and he's a spoiled brat because he won't accept a salary that's far, far below what he's generally worth? Man, people confound me..

 

[Chris]

Marner has the skill and track record to make significantly much more than $6.5 million playing in a league that generates revenue, on a yearly basis, in the billions, and he's a spoiled brat because he won't accept a salary that's far, far below what he's generally worth? Man, people confound me..

True, but ultimately he's worth what someone is willing to pay him. And if some of the rumored amounts the Leafs have offered have been true and he won't accept them...then maybe spoiled brat is an accurate description.

 

[Andy007]

Marner has the skill and track record to make significantly much more than $6.5 million playing in a league that generates revenue, on a yearly basis, in the billions, and he's a spoiled brat because he won't accept a salary that's far, far below what he's generally worth? Man, people confound me..

True, but ultimately he's worth what someone is willing to pay him. And if some of the rumored amounts the Leafs have offered have been true and he won't accept them...then maybe spoiled brat is an accurate description.

I'm just referring to the idea that he should sign for 6.5 million over 7-8 years, otherwise he's a spoiled brat. I have no idea what "rumoured amounts" have been offered or turned down.

 

[Chris]

Marner has the skill and track record to make significantly much more than $6.5 million playing in a league that generates revenue, on a yearly basis, in the billions, and he's a spoiled brat because he won't accept a salary that's far, far below what he's generally worth? Man, people confound me..

True, but ultimately he's worth what someone is willing to pay him. And if some of the rumored amounts the Leafs have offered have been true and he won't accept them...then maybe spoiled brat is an accurate description.

I'm just referring to the idea that he should sign for 6.5 million over 7-8 years, otherwise he's a spoiled brat.

Got it! No argument on that point.

 

[Kin]

True, but ultimately he's worth what someone is willing to pay him.

The idea that something is worth what someone else is willing to pay is really only true in a free market. If the NHL is engaged in price-fixing when it comes to salaries via compensation and the cap, and they absolutely are, then what someone is willing to pay doesn't necessarily really reflect someone's worth.

I've posed this question before but if Connor McDavid was a UFA and there were no cap what would he be "worth" to the Leafs? Or Rangers? Maybe double what he's making now? More? The Leafs would be willing to pay lots of guys more than they're making now but the rules of the league say they can't. That does not produce a true reflection of player's worth.

That's why each RFA case, or really any case, is going to be different. Some players may accept the nature of what the cap does to artificially restrict their value, others may be less inclined to do so and want to get paid closer to what their actual value is. I don't think that makes anyone "spoiled".

Regardless, none of that has anything to do with the hard and fast reality that if Marner signed a 7 or 8 year deal at 6.5 AAV he would have nowhere close to 40 million dollars to "throw in the bank".

 

[nutman]

Thanks Nik... You just reminded why I don't post much on hear anymore.