2017-18 Toronto Maple Leafs - General Discussion

[bustaheims]

I don't like Dellow's stance where the Leafs should be bridging all 3 guys, you're playing with fire there especially if they get to UFA at an early age.  Other teams lock up their young stars to 8 year deals, I think Leafs should do the same with our holy trinity.

I dunno. They're still going to get paid big money over their careers. The difference is really that maybe the Leafs get a little more cap flexibility early on (with a little less later - but, with the way things are going, probably not a significant amount), and they get these guys under contract for 10 or 11 more seasons before they become pending UFAs, instead of 8. Both of those seem pretty appealing in terms of team building.

 

[KadriFan]

I don't like Dellow's stance where the Leafs should be bridging all 3 guys, you're playing with fire there especially if they get to UFA at an early age.  Other teams lock up their young stars to 8 year deals, I think Leafs should do the same with our holy trinity.

I dunno. They're still going to get paid big money over their careers. The difference is really that maybe the Leafs get a little more cap flexibility early on (with a little less later - but, with the way things are going, probably not a significant amount), and they get these guys under contract for 10 or 11 more seasons before they become pending UFAs, instead of 8. Both of those seem pretty appealing in terms of team building.

I don't know. If Brown has already peaked is it a good idea to sign anyone long term lol.  Nylander is already 21 isn't he?

 

[Kin]

It's an interesting concept to kick around but I think ultimately it's out of the team's hands to some extent. If any of the big 3 want 8 year deals after their entry-levels is the small amount of cap flexibility that bridge deals would yield worth going to the mattresses over?

RFA's have very little leverage as a group but individually with the elite ones I think we're seeing that giving them the deals they want is more or less how it'll work.

 

[Kin]

I dunno. They're still going to get paid big money over their careers. The difference is really that maybe the Leafs get a little more cap flexibility early on (with a little less later - but, with the way things are going, probably not a significant amount), and they get these guys under contract for 10 or 11 more seasons before they become pending UFAs, instead of 8. Both of those seem pretty appealing in terms of team building.

A potential problem with that is the idea that post-the next CBA there'll still be the option of 8 year deals.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I dunno. They're still going to get paid big money over their careers. The difference is really that maybe the Leafs get a little more cap flexibility early on (with a little less later - but, with the way things are going, probably not a significant amount), and they get these guys under contract for 10 or 11 more seasons before they become pending UFAs, instead of 8. Both of those seem pretty appealing in terms of team building.

A potential problem with that is the idea that post-the next CBA there'll still be the option of 8 year deals.

You think the limit might be reduced? I would expect that to be a major concession for the players to concede.

 

[Kin]

You think the limit might be reduced? I would expect that to be a major concession for the players to concede.

I think the League will get more or less whatever they want just like they have in the last two CBAs.

 

[Bill_Berg]

You think the limit might be reduced? I would expect that to be a major concession for the players to concede.

I think the League will get more or less whatever they want just like they have in the last two CBAs.

Last one needed a lock-out though 

 

[Kin]

Last one needed a lock-out though 

Last 2 did. But the 2004 lockout lasted a full year whereas in '12 the players folded in January so with any luck the players will get crushed in November next time.

 

[bustaheims]

A potential problem with that is the idea that post-the next CBA there'll still be the option of 8 year deals.

That's true, though I'm not sure how much of a concern that's going to be. They haven't seemed to be a problem so far. I think they'll be more focused on reducing the length of contracts signed in the UFA market than they will be on re-signings. I can see them pushing for a 6/8 split instead of a 7/8, to give teams more leverage to retain talent.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Last one needed a lock-out though 

Last 2 did. But the 2004 lockout lasted a full year whereas in '12 the players folded in January so with any luck the players will get crushed in November next time.

Something to look forward to!

 

[Kin]

That's true, though I'm not sure how much of a concern that's going to be. They haven't seemed to be a problem so far. I think they'll be more focused on reducing the length of contracts signed in the UFA market than they will be on re-signings. I can see them pushing for a 6/8 split instead of a 7/8, to give teams more leverage to retain talent.

I think you're right in the sense that the current 7/8 split hasn't been a problem in the sense that it hasn't resulted in too many terrible 7 or 8 year deals(although I'm sure the league doesn't want to see any more Nathan Horton/David Clarkson type contracts).

Where I think the League is going to come from is going to be in wanting to significantly lower the risk involved in signing mid tier free agents. There are a lot of terrible 4, 5 and 6 year deals that agents have gotten for players because they can be sold as being under the upper threshold. I think the league is going to want to turn those deals into 2, 3 and 4 year deals and I think the relative upside of being able to lock in the guys you want to sign long term to 7 or 8 year deals isn't that big a deal because teams haven't really shown an inability to sign guys that they want to sign as they're pending UFA's(and stars aren't really showing a desire to test the upper limits of their earning power).

Plus, more UFA's means more raises which means teams stay at the top shorter(satisfying the league's love of parity) and a more active UFA market(fun!). My guess is after the next CBA deals are limited at 4/5 or 5/6.

 

[Frank E]

That's true, though I'm not sure how much of a concern that's going to be. They haven't seemed to be a problem so far. I think they'll be more focused on reducing the length of contracts signed in the UFA market than they will be on re-signings. I can see them pushing for a 6/8 split instead of a 7/8, to give teams more leverage to retain talent.

I think you're right in the sense that the current 7/8 split hasn't been a problem in the sense that it hasn't resulted in too many terrible 7 or 8 year deals(although I'm sure the league doesn't want to see any more Nathan Horton/David Clarkson type contracts).

Where I think the League is going to come from is going to be in wanting to significantly lower the risk involved in signing mid tier free agents. There are a lot of terrible 4, 5 and 6 year deals that agents have gotten for players because they can be sold as being under the upper threshold. I think the league is going to want to turn those deals into 2, 3 and 4 year deals and I think the relative upside of being able to lock in the guys you want to sign long term to 7 or 8 year deals isn't that big a deal because teams haven't really shown an inability to sign guys that they want to sign as they're pending UFA's(and stars aren't really showing a desire to test the upper limits of their earning power).

Plus, more UFA's means more raises which means teams stay at the top shorter(satisfying the league's love of parity) and a more active UFA market(fun!). My guess is after the next CBA deals are limited at 4/5 or 5/6.

I'm likely misunderstanding something here, but how does putting a contract term limit of 4-6 years going to curb bad 4-6 year deals?

 

[Kin]

I'm likely misunderstanding something here, but how does putting a contract term limit of 4-6 years going to curb bad 4-6 year deals?

It's pretty simple. The NBA used to have 7 year deals. That meant the best players got 7 year deals. Mid-tier players, with less leverage because they weren't as good, got 4 and 5 year deals. Then the NBA limited deals to 4 and 5 years. Now mid tier players, who still have less leverage, get 2 and 3 year deals. If you set an upper limit on something it resets the entire structure, not just the top.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm generally pro-player when it comes to CBA-related disputes, but I think that shorter term lengths would actually be really good for the league.*

*provided that we get the big 3 all locked up prior to those coming in effect because my heart couldn't bear losing them

 

[bustaheims]

I'm generally pro-player when it comes to CBA-related disputes, but I think that shorter term lengths would actually be really good for the league.*

*provided that we get the big 3 all locked up prior to those coming in effect because my heart couldn't bear losing them

Ultimately, it would be good for some of the players, too. It will increase their ability to cash in on big seasons - with the obvious caveat that it will also mean that poor seasons will have a larger impact, as well.

 

[Kin]

I'm generally pro-player when it comes to CBA-related disputes, but I think that shorter term lengths would actually be really good for the league.*

*provided that we get the big 3 all locked up prior to those coming in effect because my heart couldn't bear losing them

Well, and beyond that, what we've seen in the NBA is that players are effectively using the shorter terms to consolidate on good teams around the league. Obviously the NHL's hard cap will stem that possibility to some extent but if players are willing to take a little less, then you could see significant migration of talent.

 

[disco]

NHL.com's Dan Rosen and Matt Waymire take a look at the Toronto Maple Leafs for the upcoming 2017-18 NHL season:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7woZm5BkU

 

[rdowdall]

I'm generally pro-player when it comes to CBA-related disputes, but I think that shorter term lengths would actually be really good for the league.*

*provided that we get the big 3 all locked up prior to those coming in effect because my heart couldn't bear losing them

Well, and beyond that, what we've seen in the NBA is that players are effectively using the shorter terms to consolidate on good teams around the league. Obviously the NHL's hard cap will stem that possibility to some extent but if players are willing to take a little less, then you could see significant migration of talent.

NFL Players can't terminate their own contracts, can they?  The team is able to release them though, right?  I get that it would be a gong show if the players could terminate their own contracts, but that seems fairly one sided.

 

[Highlander]

I think the only way a player could terminate his contract is to retire otherwise what are contracts for.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think the only way a player could terminate his contract is to retire otherwise what are contracts for.

Many contracts in different types of business have termination clauses.