The Matthews Extension
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
Guru Tugginmypuddah
Active member
It would be great if AM34 signed up for 8x11.
Highlander
Active member
Anyone not on the Dubas train is an idiot, where are they going to find the facilities, the coaches, the fans and this new energy is going to ride this train. Something special is going on and if it falls apart after one or two Cups so be it. I will be at peace and ready for my rest.
Coco-puffs
New member
princedpw said:
Probably not. Kucherov's contract probably bounds Marner much more because they are both wingers. Some people (media/fans) had been saying if Marner puts up a ton of points this season he's going to be a 10+ million player. I didn't agree with that, but this contract probably means even if Marner breaks 90 pts, he's not going to be paid more than Kucherov.
Matthews still has McDavid as his upper bound and Eichel as his lower bound IMO, but that doesn't mean he won't take a team friendly deal- just don't bank on it.
Coco-puffs
New member
Frank E said:
He's still a winger. Center is considered the harder position to fill etc.
Coco-puffs
New member
Frank E said:
Fair. Of the top 20 cap hits for forwards, 12 are for Center and a 13th (Giroux) was signed when he was a center. He only shifted to wing because his decline has begun and he can't do the heavy lifting at both ends of the ice. The work required at both ends of the ice is why Centers general command more money.
Coco-puffs
New member
Frank E said:
LOL. Trust me, I'd rather Matthews, Marner, and Nylander sign at discounts too. They deserve to be paid well (ie, I'm not saying sign for 3M). But I'm just being realistic here. Eichel deal is his floor and taking THAT would be a discount to the team.
Frank E
Active member
Coco-puffs said:
I think you're right, but I feel like the circumstances for the Eichel deal were such that they needed to give him a pay-day to shut him up, mostly because the team was garbage. His numbers don't support a $10m AAV, at this point anyway.
So I'm more annoyed with Buffalo for doing that, but I think the Leafs' problem might be that there really isn't much in comparables for a centre that has scored at a 40 goal/yr pace for the past 2 seasons, coming into his first RFA contract, lately...even McDavid didn't score goals like that.
Kin
New member
Frank E said:
The Eichel deal was a result of the reality teams are facing with their RFA's these days and one the Leafs are going to have to deal with. I know a lot of people think of the RFA market as dead and so therefore not inflationary but probably the main thing killing the RFA market is the knowledge that other teams will match.
Eichel's market value was easily 10 million dollars. A near ppg 21 year old C would easily get that as a RFA if, again, teams weren't certain Buffalo would just match the offer. Think what you want but that market reality feeds into the leverage that guys like Eichel have.
There's a possibility that Eichel, because of Buffalo's situation, may have played slightly harder ball than otherwise but let's not kid ourselves and say that his play didn't justify his deal.
mr grieves
New member
Frank E said:
No kidding.
The list of wingers who've done it during the cap era, at 21 or 22, is... Ovechkin (in 2007-8). That's it.
Drop it to 90, and you get Kovalchuk (05-06) and Ovi again (06-07).
To 80, and all we're adding are Kane (09-10) and Hall (13-14).
5 wingers have had 80-point seasons before their 2nd contracts in the cap era.
Given the new CBA limiting contract length, only Hall's offers much of a comparable. His $6m second contract was 10% of the cap ceiling when signed. That puts Marner at about $8m. As a PPG player.
But If he hits 100... yeah, something like $10m.
Frank E
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
I guess I'm kidding myself, because I don't see consecutive 24 goal seasons, and not quite a PPG pace in year 2, being deserving of a $10m X 8 deal. Especially not a guy that isn't considered a real 2-way centre with PK skills and a great defensive game. A bunch of his points going into that contract were PP points.
I'm not sure he's better than Draisaitl, to pick another young centre that just re-signed that was drafted very high.
Kin
New member
Frank E said:
Again, is the issue "deserving" or is the issue what his market value is. Because the RFA market exists and it is the leverage he can use. Even if it's just based on future potential, I'm pretty confident someone out there would have given Eichel that on a market if they thought Buffalo wouldn't just match it.
Frank E said:
So in their extension years Draisaitl scored 29 goals and 77 points playing the vast majority of his time with Connor McDavid and Patrick Maroon. Eichel, in his extension year, scored at a 32 goal, 76 point pace playing with guys like Sam Reinhart, Marcus Foligno and Evander Kane.
Which A) looks pretty good for Eichel and B) raises the question of whether or not Draisaitl was actually playing C.
Kin
New member
I think in general people have lost the plot if they think that a RFA system is set up to give a team control over a player and lock them into some sort of artificially low RFA wage scale. If it were, then why let players who haven't hit UFA status field offers from other teams?
In the NBA, with a soft cap, they have RFA but players on their second contracts sign huge contracts. RFA status lets players take offers from other teams but their original teams can match the deal. It means teams who draft a player can ultimately control where a player plays but can't really control their salary outside of the maximum rate.
MLB, a league that doesn't have a salary cap, was able to negotiate a tougher deal with their players before hitting free agent status. Arbitration gives players a mechanism for some sort of salary equalization but before UFA status players can't field any offers from outside teams. That allows MLB teams to artificially depress wages before free agency.
I know the common thinking is that the compensation required for a RFA signing in the NHL's system should lower their value but I don't know if that was ever true. I think the compensation has always largely been irrelevant. Teams just know that RFA offers will usually get matched, a good young player almost always being worth more than the equivalent of draft picks and, as a result, teams know that the only end result of offer sheets is inflating the wage scale without any actual players moving teams.
But let's not confuse that with actual leverage on the part of NHL teams. I've said it a lot recently but it's that knowledge that teams will match that kills offer sheets, not the compensation. Agents are waking up to the fact that teams will most likely match any offer sheet for a top tier player and will use that leverage to strike market value deals for young players. Teams, who don't want things to get to that point, will simply give the younger players the deals they want.
And it's not hard to see why. If you were the Rangers or the Red Wings, would you really balk at adding Matthews at 12 million for what should be the best years of his career at the price of 4 first rounders? Or Marner at 9 million for a couple of firsts, a second and a third?
Or look at it the other way, if you're the Leafs would you take either of those offers to avoid paying those guys that much?
Right now the system encourages star players to take less than market value so their teams will be able to be more competitive. Hoping the Leafs' RFAs do that is fine and very well might play out but the idea that the RFA system means that a 22 or 23 year old superstar will make less than a 27 year old one...I don't think that's true anymore. And it shouldn't be true. Those guys are at their prime value and should be paid accordingly. The NHL wanted teams to have player control but not wage control. If they did, they would have negotiated that.
In the NBA, with a soft cap, they have RFA but players on their second contracts sign huge contracts. RFA status lets players take offers from other teams but their original teams can match the deal. It means teams who draft a player can ultimately control where a player plays but can't really control their salary outside of the maximum rate.
MLB, a league that doesn't have a salary cap, was able to negotiate a tougher deal with their players before hitting free agent status. Arbitration gives players a mechanism for some sort of salary equalization but before UFA status players can't field any offers from outside teams. That allows MLB teams to artificially depress wages before free agency.
I know the common thinking is that the compensation required for a RFA signing in the NHL's system should lower their value but I don't know if that was ever true. I think the compensation has always largely been irrelevant. Teams just know that RFA offers will usually get matched, a good young player almost always being worth more than the equivalent of draft picks and, as a result, teams know that the only end result of offer sheets is inflating the wage scale without any actual players moving teams.
But let's not confuse that with actual leverage on the part of NHL teams. I've said it a lot recently but it's that knowledge that teams will match that kills offer sheets, not the compensation. Agents are waking up to the fact that teams will most likely match any offer sheet for a top tier player and will use that leverage to strike market value deals for young players. Teams, who don't want things to get to that point, will simply give the younger players the deals they want.
And it's not hard to see why. If you were the Rangers or the Red Wings, would you really balk at adding Matthews at 12 million for what should be the best years of his career at the price of 4 first rounders? Or Marner at 9 million for a couple of firsts, a second and a third?
Or look at it the other way, if you're the Leafs would you take either of those offers to avoid paying those guys that much?
Right now the system encourages star players to take less than market value so their teams will be able to be more competitive. Hoping the Leafs' RFAs do that is fine and very well might play out but the idea that the RFA system means that a 22 or 23 year old superstar will make less than a 27 year old one...I don't think that's true anymore. And it shouldn't be true. Those guys are at their prime value and should be paid accordingly. The NHL wanted teams to have player control but not wage control. If they did, they would have negotiated that.
Bullfrog
Active member
freer said:
He'll be starting his fourth season when the extension kicks in. Over his two seasons in the league, he's tied with McDavid for most even-strength goals (61), but he's done it in 20 fewer games. He's tied in 3rd for most total goals per game.
He's 20 years old and is already one of the best players in the game. He's going to get paid like one.