Matthews signs 5 year contract, $11.634mil AAV
- Thread starter AvroArrow
- Start date
Kin
New member
But also, just to pause for a second, this is why it's such a futile and ridiculous thing to do to use any one contract as a comparison and say it dictates what someone should get.
I said this a ton in the Nylander thread but it still held up. There were valid examples on either side of the issue that pointed things in various directions. A lot of people liked the Pastrnak comparison for their side while dismissing the Draisaitl one out of hand(and completely ignored the various C's around the league who put Nylander comfortably in the 7 million range).
Similarly here, the Eichel contract makes Matthews look like a steal, McDavid's makes it look like a reach. Heck, I've said it before but the Tavares contract doesn't look great compared to certain others.
There's a ton of variables at work here and, like it or not, the individual desires of the player are probably the biggest one. Dubas can't force guys to want less money or sign deals before they want to. Realistic estimates for how much a guy gets are always going to be a range rather than a fixed amount.
I said this a ton in the Nylander thread but it still held up. There were valid examples on either side of the issue that pointed things in various directions. A lot of people liked the Pastrnak comparison for their side while dismissing the Draisaitl one out of hand(and completely ignored the various C's around the league who put Nylander comfortably in the 7 million range).
Similarly here, the Eichel contract makes Matthews look like a steal, McDavid's makes it look like a reach. Heck, I've said it before but the Tavares contract doesn't look great compared to certain others.
There's a ton of variables at work here and, like it or not, the individual desires of the player are probably the biggest one. Dubas can't force guys to want less money or sign deals before they want to. Realistic estimates for how much a guy gets are always going to be a range rather than a fixed amount.
Kin
New member
Peter D. said:
Seems unlikely given that within the post you quote I gave two other choices. Dubas can choose not to offer any particular number but, ultimately, players do get to choose whether or not they sign.
But, ok, if Marner is saying he won't sign for less than 11, what would you do in Dubas' shoes? And if negotiation is your answer to try to move him off the stance, what negotiating tactic would you take that you know Dubas hasn't tried?
The point here isn't that Dubas has no options, just that I'm looking for a specific criticism beyond being unhappy with the result.
The problem is with the CBA if anything. If we've learned anything it's that good players deserve to be paid and the lack of arbitration rights means players can play hardball. And when it's your best two players what else can you realistically do? Especially when Marner's camp could make the argument that he's been the Leafs best player all season long. I can understand letting Nylander sit but with Marner or Matthews?Peter D. said:
I'm with Nik here. Most replies thus far have been "I would've done better." How? GMs in this situation have no leverage beyond guilting players into taking less for the sake of the team. Ok, but how does that change the fact that you're getting short changed vs. other players? There's no real incentive for taking less unless everyone takes less, and, again, there's no guarantee you don't get traded so why not take as much money as you can get? Moreover, I think we act like agents aren't good at their jobs representing their clients and leading the negotiations. If someone good weren't in the corner of.our good young players they'd be getting screwed over by management, no question.
Kin
New member
Peter D. said:
Sure but, you know, let's keep in mind that literally the only power players actually have in this situation is that they're not forced to take below market deals. Other than that, all they can do is try to get paid at market rates. Their only option on the market is to try and negotiate what is effectively a trade but even then the Leafs can just match whatever offer sheet gets signed.
Elite players have some leverage because of how irreplaceable they are but this is still a system that is wildly stacked against them getting anything close to what they're worth.
Peter D.
Moderator
Personally, my dislike/disappointment of the deal lies in the fact that I?m not the biggest Matthews fan (in relation to the majority of the fan base) nor really see him standing out beyond the next tier of players after McDavid (a player I just don?t think Matthews compares to). I don?t think he is ?worth? that much; well, like I said, over 8 years yes, 5 years no. And I really don?t care what the cap hit % is as it doesn?t change my stance.
RFAs typically are considered to have minimal to no leverage. It?s not like they can pick and choose how much to make or where they can sign ? they are at the mercy of the team. But further to your point, you?re right ? the Leafs wouldn?t trade Matthews (or Marner) nor can they repeat or afford another Nylander situation where they let Matthews (or, again, Marner) sit out beyond the first couple days of training camp. So yeah, the Leafs don?t have much of a choice but to sign the player to a deal that leans in their favour.
I will say, I find it strange that amongst circles the McDavid contract was considered to throw the RFA structure out of whack (essentially the only case I think he could have and should have gotten more), the Draisaitl contract was an overpayment, as was the Eichel contract (I?m higher on his potential than most so I thought it was fair), yet this deal is kosher despite the lesser years and not buying any UFA years. And I?m sure we?ll be hearing how bad the Laine extension is when he signs likely for 8 figures.
I do keep in mind though Nik that you are pro player and believe they should make as much as possible, so what some may perceive as an overpayment (in relative terms), you?re likely to view it as under market value.
RFAs typically are considered to have minimal to no leverage. It?s not like they can pick and choose how much to make or where they can sign ? they are at the mercy of the team. But further to your point, you?re right ? the Leafs wouldn?t trade Matthews (or Marner) nor can they repeat or afford another Nylander situation where they let Matthews (or, again, Marner) sit out beyond the first couple days of training camp. So yeah, the Leafs don?t have much of a choice but to sign the player to a deal that leans in their favour.
I will say, I find it strange that amongst circles the McDavid contract was considered to throw the RFA structure out of whack (essentially the only case I think he could have and should have gotten more), the Draisaitl contract was an overpayment, as was the Eichel contract (I?m higher on his potential than most so I thought it was fair), yet this deal is kosher despite the lesser years and not buying any UFA years. And I?m sure we?ll be hearing how bad the Laine extension is when he signs likely for 8 figures.
I do keep in mind though Nik that you are pro player and believe they should make as much as possible, so what some may perceive as an overpayment (in relative terms), you?re likely to view it as under market value.
Kin
New member
Peter D. said:
I'm pretty confident that if Auston Matthews was on a truly open market that someone would have offered him more than what he got today.
That said, I really don't think this is about being pro-player or thinking players should get as much as possible. All I've ever really said is that hockey players generate a certain amount of revenue and they should be free to negotiate for whatever % of that revenue they can. I think it says way more about other people's stances than my own when that's seen as leaning heavily to one side or the other.
The thing is, the idea that an RFA is somehow less valuable than a UFA is a fiction created by artificial limits on the free flow of players. If someone buys a ticket to watch Connor McDavid, that ticket isn't cheaper because he's a RFA. His jersey isn't discounted at the NHL shop. The League doesn't cut the Oilers in for less TV money if they're led by guys under 25. The revenues generated by younger players aren't artificially restricted, just their wages are. Like I said, the idea that RFA's are somehow worth a lower % of that revenue is a fiction created by a price-fixing cartel. I don't buy into that fiction and, increasingly, neither do the players.
Under the current system that isn't even a bad thing for the owners as their costs are fixed as a % of revenues. It just changes whether that money goes to the elite young players generating the lion's share of the revenues or to the mediocre UFA's getting signed at inflated costs because of a restricted flow of players.
Why any fan would advocate for Owners to run a sport they enjoy like a pack of fairytale dragons sitting on ever-increasing piles of gold is beyond me but this isn't even about that. I think this deal makes sense within the existing, screwed up and unfair system that has been established as heavily weighted against the players because I do care about things like cap %'s.
hockeyfan1
New member
Market values, arguments and such aside, there is one thing Leafs fans want from Matthews, Marner, Dubas & co....plus whatever it takes or is taking...
THE STANLEY CUP, PLEASE! and soon, too. ☺
THE STANLEY CUP, PLEASE! and soon, too. ☺
IJustLurkHere
New member
I am thrilled we got Matthews signed under $12AAV. Should he walk in 5 years, I may change my mind, but otherwise, I like that both sides turned away from the 8 year deal... at his age, he could still sign an 8 year deal in 5 years, in a new cap reality.
I was quietly thinking 13+/8 years (which I believe is the cap % of McDavid) and wondering how we keep the group together.
I am surprised (not in a hostile way, just genuinely ?wow, that?s not the reaction I would have anticipated?) at how many seem to have expected the centrepiece of a Leafs generational push to sign for less than Taveres... AM34 was always going to be the Leafs highest paid player.
I was quietly thinking 13+/8 years (which I believe is the cap % of McDavid) and wondering how we keep the group together.
I am surprised (not in a hostile way, just genuinely ?wow, that?s not the reaction I would have anticipated?) at how many seem to have expected the centrepiece of a Leafs generational push to sign for less than Taveres... AM34 was always going to be the Leafs highest paid player.
I'm going to try and take this from a different angle. Zee, ZBBM, anyone else who is displeased with this deal, feel free to give your opinion here.
Let's just say hypothetically the league decided to do a hard reset. All contracts have been voided. All players are going into one giant dispersal draft. The team that picks first (goddamn Edmonton would probably win this lottery too) obviously selects McDavid.
You're the GM of the team picking 2nd. You get to pick any player in the league to start your franchise with. Is it Matthews? If not, who is it and roughly where would you imagine Matthews went?
Let's just say hypothetically the league decided to do a hard reset. All contracts have been voided. All players are going into one giant dispersal draft. The team that picks first (goddamn Edmonton would probably win this lottery too) obviously selects McDavid.
You're the GM of the team picking 2nd. You get to pick any player in the league to start your franchise with. Is it Matthews? If not, who is it and roughly where would you imagine Matthews went?
herman
Well-known member
Kyle Dubas made the media rounds yesterday following the signing and initial presser.
https://twitter.com/Gerv_Rebrand/status/1092951258426720257