hockeyfan1
New member
Whoa, Marner!
[tweet]1086085373988560901[/tweet]
[tweet]1086085373988560901[/tweet]
Mitch Marner
- Thread starter LuncheonMeat
- Start date
Guilt Trip
Active member
Hahaha, Matthews will be the second lol..Only reason he wasn't the first was because of injuries. Isn't it awesome to have these 2 KIDS on our team!!!Zee said:
louisstamos
Active member
disco said:
I guess the argument is not all those teams have cap issues like the Leafs do where they might not necessarily match. But Tampa certainly does, and Winnipeg to a degree too.
Kin
New member
louisstamos said:
It's a lousy argument because it still misses the central problem with offer sheets. Either an offer sheet is prohibitively expensive in which case the player's not worth the offer or it isn't in which case the team that can match it will.
The idea that any team's cap issues would necessitate them passing on a reasonable deal for one of their elite young players is basically making the argument that the Leafs would rather keep Kadri or Zaitsev over Marner.
Interesting hypothetical that I saw floated around: let's say Marner signs an offer sheet for $11-12mil on July 1st. The Leafs would then have one week to decide to match it or take the compensation of four 1st round draft picks. During that week, they speak to one of the big-3 free agents (Karlsson, Panarin, and Stone) and agree in principal to a contract. Let's say $11mil for Karlsson, $10mil for Panarin, and $9mil for Stone. Or whatever. Basically the question is would you take the four 1st round draft picks as compensation for Marner and use that cap space to sign one of those 3 free agents instead of matching the offer sheet and keeping Marner?
Kin
New member
I wouldn't do it. I don't like any of those UFAs enough(except Karlsson but I'm not thrilled with paying him that much past 34 or 35).
To some extent though it would depend on the team that made the offer sheet. But even then I think the Kessel rule should apply here in terms of future draft picks where you have to evaluate the trade in terms of the worst possible outcome re: the picks. Having 4 bonus 25-32 slot picks just doesn't seem that exciting.
To some extent though it would depend on the team that made the offer sheet. But even then I think the Kessel rule should apply here in terms of future draft picks where you have to evaluate the trade in terms of the worst possible outcome re: the picks. Having 4 bonus 25-32 slot picks just doesn't seem that exciting.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
I think you have to consider it. I'm less sold on Stone - he's having a great season, but I think he's more of a 60ish point guy that the point-a-game guy he's been this year; whereas Panarin and Karlsson are at a similar talent level as Marner. Even still, with those 4 extra 1st round picks . . .
bustaheims said:
He is about to put up back-to-back PPG seasons now, is the youngest of the 3, would be the cheapest of the 3, and is probably the best defensively of the 3.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
Could you really? I mean, aside from the hope that one of those picks would actually quickly turn into a productive player wouldn't the only real thing you could do with them is flip them into mid-tier guys who would cost in the 5-7 million range?
Having that sort of wealth of picks sounds alluring in theory but I feel like in practice unless you're in Vegas' cap situation the idea of adding a Muzzin or McDonagh or two would just be compounding the cap situation that presumably makes Marner hard to sign in the first place.
WAYNEINIONA
New member
Everyone seems to be looking at the possibility of someone putting an offer sheet in on Marner. Does he not retain the right to turn it down?
princedpw said:
Nashville is one that really jumps out. They might have to make a small move to clear a little bit of cap space but it's more than doable.