Matthews or BUST

[CarltonTheBear]

Looking back at the McGran article a little bit, he quotes two unidentified sources who discussed the negotiations:

?This one, to me, feels foolish,? an NHL source not involved in the talks told The Star. ?I don?t know what Lou?s reward is if he wins for the amount of risk you take by going this direction.?

...

?I hope Lou?s not holding his breath,? said an executive with a rival club. ?I?ve got a lot of respect for Lou, but I would not be wagering the house on (the Leafs) being able to hold that line.?

I don't really think that McGran completely pulled these quotes from his butt. They almost definitely came from NHL people outside of the Leafs discussing the situation. Now, it's entirely possible that those people misread the situation and they were wrong. But I just don't see the harm is discussing a report like this. We talk about trade rumours that get posted all the time that are likely false. There's no difference between that and this except this one potentially made the Leafs look foolish.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I mean, if the bonuses were a sticking point, and I'm not even saying that they are, do you really think that Brisson would have gone to the media and said "I had to fight tooth and nail to get this 1st overall pick the contract that he deserves because Lou is a dinosaur"?

Most of the posters here who firmly believe that this was completely fabricated are the ones saying "don't believe everything you read in the paper".

That's not what I am saying anyways.  I'm saying do not believe people who have no tangible connection to the negotiations and who do not, in their stories on the supposed negotiations, provide any evidence of having inside knowledge of the negotiations.  As I tried to make clear in my previous posts, which part of McGran's column has anything I should believe as true?  There's not even a "source with intimate knowledge of the negotiations" to at least give the illusion of him having sources involved.  Until provided something credible from another source I have no reason not to believe those involved in the negotiations.

But like I said, if Bob McKenzie was saying it?  I'd give it more weight.

 

[Kin]

I mean, if the bonuses were a sticking point, and I'm not even saying that they are, do you really think that Brisson would have gone to the media and said "I had to fight tooth and nail to get this 1st overall pick the contract that he deserves because Lou is a dinosaur"?

Which is sort of where I'm coming from. Earlier Zee threw these out as potential explanations for reconciling the reports with the signing:

1) Lou got pressure from Shanahan/ownership to sign the deal because of growing media coverage
2) Lou caved on his own and gave max bonuses
3) A mixture of 1&2?

So, for the sake of argument, if any of these are true how do people genuinely think it would shake out differently in the media? Do people think Shanahan would make his displeasure public? Lamoriello would say "yeah, I tried to hardball him but ultimately kind of had to cave"? Or do people think Brisson, who has to maintain relationships not just with the Leafs but with all teams, would backdoor the team and put his name to an article critical of Lamoriello's position?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Regardless, clearly at some point Lou DID change his attitude regarding ELC's. He even specifically made note that he's not running the Leafs like he did the Devils. So whether he made the change on his own or Shanny had to push him a little, it doesn't matter. I'm glad he was able to see that it was a dumb policy that likely had absolutely no positive effect on whether he put together a winning team or not.

Now, about those beards...

 

[Deebo]

Regardless, clearly at some point Lou DID change his attitude regarding ELC's.

Yeah, 4 years ago.

 

[Bates]

Or could it be possible that Lou sees a difference in signing most 1st rounders to bonus friendly contracts vs signing 1st overall player who project to be franchise players to bonus friendly contracts??  There is a big difference between ability and projections of Matthews vs Larrson and maybe Lou recognises that one of they will be earning their bonuses as one of the team's best players and the other will have a slow learning curve.

Regardless, clearly at some point Lou DID change his attitude regarding ELC's. He even specifically made note that he's not running the Leafs like he did the Devils. So whether he made the change on his own or Shanny had to push him a little, it doesn't matter. I'm glad he was able to see that it was a dumb policy that likely had absolutely no positive effect on whether he put together a winning team or not.

Now, about those beards...

 

[TBLeafer]

And Larsson was so important to the future of the Devils that he got them Hall. 

 

[bustaheims]

Fabrication is probably the wrong word for it, but I do believe McGran's article was almost entirely speculative in nature - based on past actions (and, as others have pointed out, largely those from 4+ years ago) and speculation from other people around the league.

 

[Kin]

Or could it be possible that Lou sees a difference in signing most 1st rounders to bonus friendly contracts vs signing 1st overall player who project to be franchise players to bonus friendly contracts??  There is a big difference between ability and projections of Matthews vs Larrson and maybe Lou recognises that one of they will be earning their bonuses as one of the team's best players and the other will have a slow learning curve.

I think the issue with Larsson wasn't that he didn't get #1 bonus money but that it was out of line with other #4's.

 

[Bates]

I don't penalize Lou for being right.

Or could it be possible that Lou sees a difference in signing most 1st rounders to bonus friendly contracts vs signing 1st overall player who project to be franchise players to bonus friendly contracts??  There is a big difference between ability and projections of Matthews vs Larrson and maybe Lou recognises that one of they will be earning their bonuses as one of the team's best players and the other will have a slow learning curve.

I think the issue with Larsson wasn't that he didn't get #1 bonus money but that it was out of line with other #4's.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Regardless, clearly at some point Lou DID change his attitude regarding ELC's.

Yeah, 4 years ago.

Those don't really seem like the greatest examples since both the players from Jersey you mentioned received a NHL salary lower than the maximum allowed and their (small) performance bonuses only just brought them to or very slightly over that amount. I highly doubt he went to war with Larsson and then completely scrapped the idea just a year later.

 

[Kin]

I don't penalize Lou for being right.

There's a possibility you don't entirely understand the concept of performance bonuses.

 

[Bates]

I understand them just fine.  Maybe, just once, you might be on the wrong side of an argument.

I don't penalize Lou for being right.

There's a possibility you don't entirely understand the concept of performance bonuses.

 

[Kin]

I understand them just fine.

Then how does Lou "being right" about Larsson play into this? If the subtext is that Larsson got a less lucrative bonus structure than other #4 picks because Larsson hasn't shown himself to be as valuable as other #4 picks then Larsson probably wouldn't have hit those bonus targets anyway.

In fact, as pointed out here: The Auston Matthews contract and bonuses there's real reason to think Lamoriello did think that Larsson would hit those bonuses and negatively impact the Devils cap situation.

So it doesn't make sense to think that Lamoriello was "right" about Larsson or, I mean, at the very least if you think that he was "right" that Larsson wouldn't be as valuable as other #4 picks...maybe don't draft him at #4? Especially with guys like Scheifele and Dougie Hamilton on the board?

The only other way to read that as Lamoriello being "right" is a stand against bonuses in general which, as people are lining up to say, isn't true.

 

[Zee]

This whole debate about Lou and bonus money doesn't really address the fact that Lou had different owners in NJ with a different agenda.  The GM has to abide by the owner's wishes, if the commandment from on high was to keep the team salary as low as possible, then the absence of bonus money for rookies doesn't really seem all that strange.  Now that Lou is in Toronto, the same rules don't apply.

 

[Bates]

I think Lou is right in that the team has the ability to control costs during entry level and RFA years in a Cap world.  Older players were happy to throw young guys under the bus and I see no reason for teams to not follow suit.  There are exceptions to every rule and players such as Eichel and Matthews will be their teams best players and making them happy are a lot more important than making guys like Eberle and Larsson happy.  You have a system to work under and using it best for your team is essential.

I understand them just fine.

Then how does Lou "being right" about Larsson play into this? If the subtext is that Larsson got a less lucrative bonus structure than other #4 picks because Larsson hasn't shown himself to be as valuable as other #4 picks then Larsson probably wouldn't have hit those bonus targets anyway.

In fact, as pointed out here: The Auston Matthews contract and bonuses there's real reason to think Lamoriello did think that Larsson would hit those bonuses and negatively impact the Devils cap situation.

So it doesn't make sense to think that Lamoriello was "right" about Larsson or, I mean, at the very least if you think that he was "right" that Larsson wouldn't be as valuable as other #4 picks...maybe don't draft him at #4? Especially with guys like Scheifele and Dougie Hamilton on the board?

The only other way to read that as Lamoriello being "right" is a stand against bonuses in general which, as people are lining up to say, isn't true.

 

[Kin]

The GM has to abide by the owner's wishes, if the commandment from on high was to keep the team salary as low as possible, then the absence of bonus money for rookies doesn't really seem all that strange.

Except there's absolutely no reason to think that's true. The Devils weren't scraping by at the cap floor, they were usually at the upper reaches of the cap and if you're going to scrimp and save you might want to start with not signing Ryan Clowe as opposed to hammering down on ELCs.

 

[TBLeafer]

At this point McGran's (and said NHL executives and such) opinion and speculation literally have no teeth. 

They were chasing a ghost.

 

[Kin]

I think Lou is right in that the team has the ability to control costs during entry level and RFA years in a Cap world.  Older players were happy to throw young guys under the bus and I see no reason for teams to not follow suit.  There are exceptions to every rule and players such as Eichel and Matthews will be their teams best players and making them happy are a lot more important than making guys like Eberle and Larsson happy.  You have a system to work under and using it best for your team is essential.

I don't think it's easy to look at how Lamoriello managed the Devils' cap over his last few years and say that he did manage it especially well. Sure, you can treat your talented young players worse than other teams treat theirs but you have to weigh the very limited cap savings(a couple million a year, maybe) vs. the effect it has on those players. If Lamoriello had a good record of retaining players with the Devils that would be one thing but more high profile free agents have left the Devils than probably any other team and the free agent deals he signed this decade have largely been terrible.

 

[Bates]

That makes the assumption that players left purely for salary reasons, and that the team signing them made right salary decision.  I don't share that opinion.

I think Lou is right in that the team has the ability to control costs during entry level and RFA years in a Cap world.  Older players were happy to throw young guys under the bus and I see no reason for teams to not follow suit.  There are exceptions to every rule and players such as Eichel and Matthews will be their teams best players and making them happy are a lot more important than making guys like Eberle and Larsson happy.  You have a system to work under and using it best for your team is essential.

I don't think it's easy to look at how Lamoriello managed the Devils' cap over his last few years and say that he did manage it especially well. Sure, you can treat your talented young players worse than other teams treat theirs but you have to weigh the very limited cap savings(a couple million a year, maybe) vs. the effect it has on those players. If Lamoriello had a good record of retaining players with the Devils that would be one thing but more high profile free agents have left the Devils than probably any other team and the free agent deals he signed this decade have largely been terrible.