Brock Boeser re-signs 3 years x 5.875M AAV

[Kin]

One thing to note, Boeser's points per game vs. raw points is much better.  Without injury he's a career 68 point pace guy which makes his cap hit vs. point production much better than Marner's.

I didn't express it as PPG because I think NHL teams are unlikely to pay a player as though he's hit a certain level of production unless he's actually hit it.

Like, if a player has three years of 82 points, 82 points and then 41 points in 41 games due to injury, it's fair to view him as a 80 point player.

In Boeser's case, I think that if you want to get paid like a 60+ point player, he'lll actually have to hit that level once. It's why he probably took a bridge deal. He'll want to establish his numbers over a 82 game season before he expects to get paid for it.

 

[Zee]

And Boeser is only a 3 yr deal, only buying up RFA years.  With a Qualifying Offer of 7.5M required for the 4th year.

I know a lot's being made of these bigger QO years, but I wonder how many of the recent RFAs actually end up taking them. Meier I can potentially see because it's a monster at $10mil. But all these copy-cat ones (Boeser at $7.5mil, McAvoy at $7.3mil, Werenski at $7mil) don't really seem high enough to take on a 1-year deal to pass up a longer, more lucractive extension.

If Boeser takes the 1 year his salary for 4 years averages to $6.28M and then he's a free agent.  Guess it all depends on what he wants.

 

[Kin]

And Boeser is only a 3 yr deal, only buying up RFA years.  With a Qualifying Offer of 7.5M required for the 4th year.

I know a lot's being made of these bigger QO years, but I wonder how many of the recent RFAs actually end up taking them. Meier I can potentially see because it's a monster at $10mil. But all these copy-cat ones (Boeser at $7.5mil, McAvoy at $7.3mil, Werenski at $7mil) don't really seem high enough to take on a 1-year deal to pass up a longer, more lucractive extension.

I don't think many will take it, just that it's insurance against negotiations not going well or a sub-par final year of the deal.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If Boeser takes the 1 year his salary for 4 years averages to $6.28M and then he's a free agent.  Guess it all depends on what he wants.

Even if they wanted a 1-year deal and then to walk at those QO rates they're probably better off just going to arbitration. Especially in 3 years if those players all progress the way we expect them to and there's an increase in the cap.

 

[Zee]

One thing to note, Boeser's points per game vs. raw points is much better.  Without injury he's a career 68 point pace guy which makes his cap hit vs. point production much better than Marner's.

I didn't express it as PPG because I think NHL teams are unlikely to pay a player as though he's hit a certain level of production unless he's actually hit it.

Like, if a player has three years of 82 points, 82 points and then 41 points in 41 games due to injury, it's fair to view him as a 80 point player.

In Boeser's case, I think that if you want to get paid like a 60+ point player, he'lll actually have to hit that level once. It's why he probably took a bridge deal. He'll want to establish his numbers over a 82 game season before he expects to get paid for it.

Which brings us back to the original question of Leafs contracts vs. rest of league guys.  Why aren't these unwritten rules applicable to Leafs players?  Boeser has to hit a certain point threshhold to be paid like that, why did Matthews get paid like a 90+ point guy even though he's never hit that level in a season, or in his career PPG?  His high salary set the bar for Marner to demand more money, whereas in Colorado, Rantanen won't be able to ask for as much as Marner because there's no team comparable that high. 

 

[Kin]

Which brings us back to the original question of Leafs contracts vs. rest of league guys.  Why aren't these unwritten rules applicable to Leafs players?  Boeser has to hit a certain point threshhold to be paid like that, why did Matthews get paid like a 90+ point guy even though he's never hit that level in a season, or in his career PPG?  His high salary set the bar for Marner to demand more money, whereas in Colorado, Rantanen won't be able to ask for as much as Marner because there's no team comparable that high.

I don't know that it's the original question but I think there's a difference for players perceived as legitimate superstar types. Matthews' deal in that respect is pretty similar to Eichel's.

 

[Bullfrog]

Which brings us back to the original question of Leafs contracts vs. rest of league guys.  Why aren't these unwritten rules applicable to Leafs players?  Boeser has to hit a certain point threshhold to be paid like that, why did Matthews get paid like a 90+ point guy even though he's never hit that level in a season, or in his career PPG?  His high salary set the bar for Marner to demand more money, whereas in Colorado, Rantanen won't be able to ask for as much as Marner because there's no team comparable that high.

It might have something to do with him posting some of the greatest 5v5 goal rates in history.

 

[Zee]

Which brings us back to the original question of Leafs contracts vs. rest of league guys.  Why aren't these unwritten rules applicable to Leafs players?  Boeser has to hit a certain point threshhold to be paid like that, why did Matthews get paid like a 90+ point guy even though he's never hit that level in a season, or in his career PPG?  His high salary set the bar for Marner to demand more money, whereas in Colorado, Rantanen won't be able to ask for as much as Marner because there's no team comparable that high.

It might have something to do with him posting some of the greatest 5v5 goal rates in history.

Fair enough for goals, but what about Marner?  He's not a historically great 5v5 goal scorer yet he's got the 5th highest cap hit among all forwards right now.

 

[Bullfrog]

You were talking about actual production though, and Marner's actually produced 94 points. Boeser's highest is 29 goals (only three more than Marner) and 56 points (38 less than Marner). Injuries are a part of that, obviously, but that's the point Nik is talking about. Regardless of circumstances, Marner's actually put up the points.

Matthews is an exception due to the exceptional rates he's produced.

 

[Kin]

It might have something to do with him posting some of the greatest 5v5 goal rates in history.

There's also that. Matthews' deal may very well reflect the market value of a #1 C who scores 37 goals a year(Tavares, as a point of comparison, got 11 million per averaging 33 a year).

If Matthews had gotten paid via his projected numbers? 13+ is probably in play.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/ChartingHockey/status/1174006638677766144

 

[Zee]

https://twitter.com/ChartingHockey/status/1174006638677766144

Hey there's one Leaf that came in way below the line!

(Gardiner isn't a Leaf anymore)

Oh.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

And that chart uses the EW projected cap hit from what they determined the most likely signing length would be. If you used the projected cap hit from the term they actually signed for the correlation would probably be even stronger.

For example that graph makes it look like they missed on Aho but that's because they thought he'd sign an 8 year deal. Their projected cap hit on a 5 year deal though was $8.7mil, pretty much right on. That's true for a lot of the RFAs. The graph makes it look like Philly overpaid for Konecny but EW thought he'd only sign for 2 years. On a 6 year deal he was projected to get $5.9mil.

 

[Zee]

And that chart uses the EW projected cap hit from what they determined the most likely signing length would be. If you used the projected cap hit from the term they actually signed for the correlation would probably be even stronger.

For example that graph makes it look like they missed on Aho but that's because they thought he'd sign an 8 year deal. Their projected cap hit on a 5 year deal though was $8.7mil, pretty much right on. That's true for a lot of the RFAs. The graph makes it look like Philly overpaid for Konecny but EW thought he'd only sign for 2 years. On a 6 year deal he was projected to get $5.9mil.

So, this is my concern.  Why when they use models, past signings etc to predict contracts, basically the entire league comes in at what EW is predicting, except for the Leafs?  Why is Toronto the only team that seems to have to pay a premium for their contracts as opposed to other teams? 

I get that our team is set now, we're cap compliant, although as you pointed out that may mean having to carry fewer players for some games during the season, but it hurts the team overall to have a bunch of players basically overpaid with respect to their comparables in other markets. 

 

[Bates]

And that chart uses the EW projected cap hit from what they determined the most likely signing length would be. If you used the projected cap hit from the term they actually signed for the correlation would probably be even stronger.

For example that graph makes it look like they missed on Aho but that's because they thought he'd sign an 8 year deal. Their projected cap hit on a 5 year deal though was $8.7mil, pretty much right on. That's true for a lot of the RFAs. The graph makes it look like Philly overpaid for Konecny but EW thought he'd only sign for 2 years. On a 6 year deal he was projected to get $5.9mil.

So, this is my concern.  Why when they use models, past signings etc to predict contracts, basically the entire league comes in at what EW is predicting, except for the Leafs?  Why is Toronto the only team that seems to have to pay a premium for their contracts as opposed to other teams? 

I get that our team is set now, we're cap compliant, although as you pointed out that may mean having to carry fewer players for some games during the season, but it hurts the team overall to have a bunch of players basically overpaid with respect to their comparables in other markets.

And Teams get "their" Cap discounts, and tax State discounts, and so on but for some reason the millions available in endorcements in Toronto are just a bonus to the player??

 

[herman]

So, this is my concern.  Why when they use models, past signings etc to predict contracts, basically the entire league comes in at what EW is predicting, except for the Leafs?  Why is Toronto the only team that seems to have to pay a premium for their contracts as opposed to other teams?

I get that our team is set now, we're cap compliant, although as you pointed out that may mean having to carry fewer players for some games during the season, but it hurts the team overall to have a bunch of players basically overpaid with respect to their comparables in other markets.

Screaming. Crying. Perfect storm.

Many teams have paid a supposed premium to acquire or retain an asset before (what up, Vancouver and Ottawa and Edmonton and Arizona and Minnesota). The Leafs get the occasional discount too (Have you met John Tavares?). Toronto just had 4 straight superstar signings in a cap crunch, so that's top of mind.

John Tavares took a lower offer than either NYI or SJS to come home. Nylander came in at Pastrnak's cap% + inflation which is honestly low for both those players; Matthews is arguably underpaid; Marner leveraged his perfect situation (have you met John Tavares?) and won an extra 1.5M AAV for committing to term.

I'm okay with overpaying Marner a bit here than say trying to get Matt Martin or Leo Komarov instead of Nick Shore. We also lucked into pretty savvy deals for Kapanen, Johnsson, and Kerfoot due to their short track records.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So, this is my concern.  Why when they use models, past signings etc to predict contracts, basically the entire league comes in at what EW is predicting, except for the Leafs?  Why is Toronto the only team that seems to have to pay a premium for their contracts as opposed to other teams? 

The 2018 version of these cap projections was done by a gentleman named Matt Cane, he now works for the analytics department of the New Jersey Devils (run by Tyler Dellow). His numbers had Tavares signing a 7-year deal at $10.6mil and Nylander signing a 6-year deal at $6.95mil. So those were either close or in Nylander's case dead accurate.

Here are the EW AAV's for the non-Marner signings Dubas made this offseason (based off the term they signed for) vs. what they actually signed for:

Johnsson: $3.67mil vs. $3.4mil
Kerfoot: $4.2mil vs. $3.5mil
Kapanen: $2.8mil vs. $3.2mil

That's 5 of his biggest 7 contracts where he was pretty much right on, so it's not like he has a concerning history of grossly overpaying players.

And I genuinely believe that Matthews is the type of player that breaks these kinds of models so he was pretty much in a positon to ask for whatever he wanted.

 

[Zee]

So, this is my concern.  Why when they use models, past signings etc to predict contracts, basically the entire league comes in at what EW is predicting, except for the Leafs?  Why is Toronto the only team that seems to have to pay a premium for their contracts as opposed to other teams? 

The 2018 version of these cap projections was done by a gentleman named Matt Cane, he now works for the analytics department of the New Jersey Devils (run by Tyler Dellow). His numbers had Tavares signing a 7-year deal at $10.6mil and Nylander signing a 6-year deal at $6.95mil. So those were either close or in Nylander's case dead accurate.

Here are the EW AAV's for the non-Marner signings Dubas made this offseason (based off the term they signed for) vs. what they actually signed for:

Johnsson: $3.67mil vs. $3.4mil
Kerfoot: $4.2mil vs. $3.5mil
Kapanen: $2.8mil vs. $3.2mil

That's 5 of his biggest 7 contracts where he was pretty much right on, so it's not like he has a concerning history of grossly overpaying players.

And I genuinely believe that Matthews is the type of player that breaks these kinds of models so he was pretty much in a positon to ask for whatever he wanted.

It would seem the perceived "star power" of the player name affects the overall contract.  Kerfoot is the biggest "savings" vs. projection with 700k less.  I get what you're saying about Matthews breaking the mold, but I was pretty much against his deal from the moment it was signed, I think I said I would have been fine with it if it were 6 years as opposed to 5, since we would have gotten 1 extra UFA year.  Matthews contract ultimately drove up Marner's ask, so here we are.  At least the Leafs won't have to go through this again for a while.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Just realized that this Boeser contract will expire at the same time as the Eriksson, Roussel, and Beagle contracts. Smart move by his agent as that'll clear a ton of space for his next deal. That's a combined cap hit of $12mil for 3 players who either wouldn't make the Leafs or would play on their 4th line.

There's probably not a team out there that doesn't have at least one contract that seems troublesome. Once we get past this Ceci year the "worst" contract on the team will likely be Marner's. That's not exactly an awful position to be in (granted yes having only perfect contacts would be a better position).

 

[Bates]

Just realized that this Boeser contract will expire at the same time as the Eriksson, Roussel, and Beagle contracts. Smart move by his agent as that'll clear a ton of space for his next deal. That's a combined cap hit of $12mil for 3 players who either wouldn't make the Leafs or would play on their 4th line.

There's probably not a team out there that doesn't have at least one contract that seems troublesome. Once we get past this Ceci year the "worst" contract on the team will likely be Marner's. That's not exactly an awful position to be in (granted yes having only perfect contacts would be a better position).

And Luongo.