Contracts for the Big-3

[Coco-puffs]

https://www.tsn.ca/video/mckenzie-i-get-the-feeling-matthews-marner-want-to-wait-until-next-summer-to-sign~1415103

Well, that won't be great for the cap space picture after the upcoming season.  I can only imagine that, assuming they are both healthy, they will put up numbers that only increase their next contracts.  Don't blame the players for (possibly) wanting to do that, but if it happens it won't be to the benefit of the team long term.

 

[Kin]

https://www.tsn.ca/video/mckenzie-i-get-the-feeling-matthews-marner-want-to-wait-until-next-summer-to-sign~1415103

Well, that won't be great for the cap space picture after the upcoming season.  I can only imagine that, assuming they are both healthy, they will put up numbers that only increase their next contracts.  Don't blame the players for (possibly) wanting to do that, but if it happens it won't be to the benefit of the team long term.

The modern day NHL, ladies and gentlemen. Where you want your players to be good, but not too good.

 

[Coco-puffs]

https://www.tsn.ca/video/mckenzie-i-get-the-feeling-matthews-marner-want-to-wait-until-next-summer-to-sign~1415103

Well, that won't be great for the cap space picture after the upcoming season.  I can only imagine that, assuming they are both healthy, they will put up numbers that only increase their next contracts.  Don't blame the players for (possibly) wanting to do that, but if it happens it won't be to the benefit of the team long term.

The modern day NHL, ladies and gentlemen. Where you want your players to be good, but not too good.

No, you want them to be great. You just want to sign them long term before they get there.  In Matthews case, I don't think it makes a huge a difference as it will with Marner.  He might move from Ehlers/Pasternak etc money to Eichel money with a big year next year.

 

[Kin]

No, you want them to be great. You just want to sign them long term before they get there.  In Matthews case, I don't think it makes a huge a difference as it will with Marner.  He might move from Ehlers/Pasternak etc money to Eichel money with a big year next year.

My post was mainly a joke but if you don't think it's ridiculous to have created a pointlessly adversarial system where we should be rooting for the players we like on the teams we root for to lock themselves into long term contracts at below their market value then we look at things very differently.

 

[Coco-puffs]

No, you want them to be great. You just want to sign them long term before they get there.  In Matthews case, I don't think it makes a huge a difference as it will with Marner.  He might move from Ehlers/Pasternak etc money to Eichel money with a big year next year.

My post was mainly a joke but if you don't think it's ridiculous to have created a pointlessly adversarial system where we should be rooting for the players we like on the teams we root for to lock themselves into long term contracts at below their market value then we look at things very differently.

From a hockey economics perspective, I agree with your sentiment- a lot of the NHL's stars are underpaid because of the system we have in place.  As for what I want to happen to the team that I root for including the players I root for:  In a hard cap system, you can't afford too many stars if they are all getting paid full market value- even if you don't have dead weight on your cap ledger. 

So, am I hoping that Marner signs a 8 x 7M deal now instead of waiting out this year and possibly getting closer to 9-10M?  Yes.  I'm not going to feel bad that his income is 56M instead of 80M over the next 8 years.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Even if he had a PPG-type season, I'd be pretty surprised to see Marner get $9-10mil on his next contract. I think Draisaitl sorta set the ceiling for post-ELC deals for non-franchise players and he's at $8.5mil for 8 years.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Even if he had a PPG-type season, I'd be pretty surprised to see Marner get $9-10mil on his next contract. I think Draisaitl sorta set the ceiling for post-ELC deals for non-franchise players and he's at $8.5mil for 8 years.

If Marner was signing in the same season, with the same CAP limit, then yes you can say he can't argue for more than Draisatl.  However, Marner's deal will start 2 seasons later and the cap will have gone up approximately 8-10% in that time.

 

[Peter D.]

I'm hopeful, but also expect from management, that the big three cost no more than $25 million combined. 

10 for Matthews, 8 for Marner, 7 for Nylander, or any combination thereof.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm hopeful, but also expect from management, that the big three cost no more than $25 million combined. 

10 for Matthews, 8 for Marner, 7 for Nylander, or any combination thereof.

Yeah, that's roughly what I'm thinking too. 10.5 for Matthews, 7.5-8mil for Marner, 6.5-7 for Nylander.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If Marner was signing in the same season, with the same CAP limit, then yes you can say he can't argue for more than Draisatl.  However, Marner's deal will start 2 seasons later and the cap will have gone up approximately 8-10% in that time.

I mean McKenzie made a similar argument to this too so I'm not saying you're wrong, but I just don't get this kind of thinking. Agents and teams know the cap rises every single year. It's not a surprise. So Draisatl's agent knew when he negotiated that deal that the percentage of the cap it took in the first year was going to be vastly different than what it was in the 3rd or 5th or 8th year. They make all these projections during the negotiating process and still settle at a number that they're comfortable with during the length of the deal.

So when a guy like Draisatl sets a benchmark like this, it takes a number of years of the cap rising for somebody else to be able to really change it. And Marner will only be signing his deal 1-2 years after that one.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'd also say that I wouldn't be that surprised if Marner's numbers next season stay pretty close to what he had this season, or maybe even decrease a little bit. Losing JVR (and even Bozak) on the powerplay could really hurt his productivity. It's possible he gets more playing time with Matthews next season, both at even-strength and on the powerplay, but it's also very possible that he doesn't.

 

[bustaheims]

So when a guy like Draisatl sets a benchmark like this, it takes a number of years of the cap rising for somebody else to be able to really change it. And Marner will only be signing his deal 1-2 years after that one.

Yeah. We haven't really seen a clear year-to-year connection between the cap rising and comparable contracts rising in direct proportion. Contracts take a larger jump every few years instead.

 

[Zee]

We must believe that our big 3 of Dubas/Pridham/Gilman can get these contracts done in a fair and balanced cap friendly way for the Leafs.

 

[Kin]

As for what I want to happen to the team that I root for including the players I root for:  In a hard cap system, you can't afford too many stars if they are all getting paid full market value- even if you don't have dead weight on your cap ledger.

Right. I understand that. My point is that "I hope we don't have too many stars because we might have to pay them fairly" is evidence that it's a stupid system.

So, am I hoping that Marner signs a 8 x 7M deal now instead of waiting out this year and possibly getting closer to 9-10M?  Yes.  I'm not going to feel bad that his income is 56M instead of 80M over the next 8 years.

To somewhat shift focus, this is another example of the way that teams like the Leafs have things weighted against them in contract negotiations in the current system. A star player in Arizona or Ottawa or Carolina might be negotiating his deal and get told by their GM that they shouldn't press for every dollar because there are empty seats and ticket prices are the lowest in the league and so on and so forth and hockey players, because they're dopes, will listen and take a "fair" reduced salary.

Meanwhile guys like Matthews and Marner are looking at a packed house every night full of Bay Street jerkwads paying 300 bucks a seat. Something tells me their definition of what a "fair" cut might be will differ on that basis.

 

[Coco-puffs]

As for what I want to happen to the team that I root for including the players I root for:  In a hard cap system, you can't afford too many stars if they are all getting paid full market value- even if you don't have dead weight on your cap ledger.

Right. I understand that. My point is that "I hope we don't have too many stars because we might have to pay them fairly" is evidence that it's a stupid system.

So, am I hoping that Marner signs a 8 x 7M deal now instead of waiting out this year and possibly getting closer to 9-10M?  Yes.  I'm not going to feel bad that his income is 56M instead of 80M over the next 8 years.

To somewhat shift focus, this is another example of the way that teams like the Leafs have things weighted against them in contract negotiations in the current system. A star player in Arizona or Ottawa or Carolina might be negotiating his deal and get told by their GM that they shouldn't press for every dollar because there are empty seats and ticket prices are the lowest in the league and so on and so forth and hockey players, because they're dopes, will listen and take a "fair" reduced salary.

Meanwhile guys like Matthews and Marner are looking at a packed house every night full of Bay Street jerkwads paying 300 bucks a seat. Something tells me their definition of what a "fair" cut might be will differ on that basis.

Agreed on both counts.  At this point, the Leafs best negotiating tactic is going to be "we want to keep this core together and still be able to pay the necessary pieces for us to contend for a long time... so how about cutting a mill or two a year off your demands so we can build a winner."

Some guys might accept that.  Others won't.  Especially, when that extra million or two goes to overpay guys in FA that don't really help you win.

System is certainly stupid that we may never dip into the free agent market in the upcoming years, but we won't be able to keep all our talent if we pay them market value.

 

[Frank E]

The thing that comes to mind for me is that these young Leafs are also RFAs, and not UFAs...so there's some leverage there as well, at least in the short term.

 

[Kin]

The thing that comes to mind for me is that these young Leafs are also RFAs, and not UFAs...so there's some leverage there as well, at least in the short term.

Didn't help the Oilers much.

 

[Guilt Trip]

The thing that comes to mind for me is that these young Leafs are also RFAs, and not UFAs...so there's some leverage there as well, at least in the short term.

Didn't help the Oilers much.

They have an idiot for a GM tho.

 

[Kin]

They have an idiot for a GM tho.

Did they? So what leverage would a smart GM have had if McDavid demanded 14 million and not a penny less? Let Connor McDavid sit? Let him sign an offer sheet and take picks for a generational talent?

 

[Frank E]

The thing that comes to mind for me is that these young Leafs are also RFAs, and not UFAs...so there's some leverage there as well, at least in the short term.

Didn't help the Oilers much.

I don't know how to quantify it.