Matthews signs 5 year contract, $11.634mil AAV

[Kin]

Matthews right now is "projecting" to a 50 goal, 100 point year.

 

[Kin]

Eichel's first 2 seasons:

113 points, .795 ppg

8 years, 10 million AAV, what a win for Buffalo!

Nylander's first two seasons:

122 points, .748 ppg

6 years, 6.9 million AAV, WAHHHHHHH WHY CAN'T DUBAS SIGN GOOD DEALS!

 

[leafsjunkie]

Eichel's first 2 seasons:

113 points, .795 ppg

8 years, 10 million AAV, what a win for Buffalo!

Nylander's first two seasons:

122 points, .748 ppg

6 years, 6.9 million AAV, WAHHHHHHH WHY CAN'T DUBAS SIGN GOOD DEALS!

The mouth breathers are going to bypass facts, though.

 

[TimKerr]

Eichel's first 2 seasons:

113 points, .795 ppg

8 years, 10 million AAV, what a win for Buffalo!

Nylander's first two seasons:

122 points, .748 ppg

6 years, 6.9 million AAV, WAHHHHHHH WHY CAN'T DUBAS SIGN GOOD DEALS!

What he said.

 

[Zee]

Eichel's first 2 seasons:

113 points, .795 ppg

8 years, 10 million AAV, what a win for Buffalo!

Nylander's first two seasons:

122 points, .748 ppg

6 years, 6.9 million AAV, WAHHHHHHH WHY CAN'T DUBAS SIGN GOOD DEALS!

The mouth breathers are going to bypass facts, though.

I think I've been pretty consistent since the Matthews deal was signed that I thought it was a slight overpay.  If you look back, the minute it was announced I posted I felt 6 years at the cap hit would have been fine.  I simply wanted 1 more UFA year to keep your 2 elite centers locked in for 7 playoff runs. There's value in that.  Given that Matthews would still get 11.6 for 1 more year, and then get to re-negotiate his next contract a year earlier than both McDavid and Eichel, I don't think he would have been giving up much in that case. 

Also for Nylander, I never said it was an overpay, just what he deserved, but I wish they could have convinced him to give a bit of a break.  Again, Leafs aren't able to get the same breaks other GMs are able to convince players of, despite having the financial might to pay almost the entire contract in bonus money, making it lockout proof.  That's got to be worth something.

 

[Zee]

Eichel's first 2 seasons:

113 points, .795 ppg

8 years, 10 million AAV, what a win for Buffalo!

Nylander's first two seasons:

122 points, .748 ppg

6 years, 6.9 million AAV, WAHHHHHHH WHY CAN'T DUBAS SIGN GOOD DEALS!

What he said.

I don't see what he said unless someone quotes it.

With respect to Eichel's contract, he's still under contract for 2 seasons while Nylander gets to hit the open market and get paid large.  There's tremendous value in that.  Leafs might not be able to afford Nylander in 5 years, while Buffalo will still have Eichel.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't think anyone is unhappy that he signed and I'm pretty sure everyone is stoked that the team is doing well. Many are just questioning whether the deal could/should have been better.

Posts in this thread would indicate otherwise.

Like where? People are complaining that the cap hit was too high for the term. I get the "you don't worry about overpaying your stars" argument but why is Matthews worth 11.6 when you only buy 1 year of UFA? His deal is actually expiring before McDavid and Eichel, it doesn't make sense in that regard.

5 year term should have been under 11, say 10.6M so they have another million to work with. Had this deal been 6 years x 11.6 I think it's fine because you keep Tavares and Matthews together for 7 full playoff runs including this season.

What is your reasoning behind the 10.6? Also, why the obsession with Eichel?  He had two mediocre seasons(his term, not mine) and then extended for $10 million/season. He's playing well this year, but that's not when he was given 10 million a year. In fact, prior to this season, he's never even been at a ppg. Hindsight is a nice and all, but it's not exactly a bargaining tool to get a lower salary.

My reasoning is 11.6 and over 14% of the cap is too high a price to pay while getting only 1 UFA year.  Had he signed for 10.6, he's still ahead of Eichel in both salary and cap %.  Say what you want about Eichel, but he's on a value deal now, and he's given up 4 UFA years.  Matthews only gave up 1.  That alone should have let the Leafs save on the cap hit.  It may not seem like a big difference, but it has a trickle down effect, especially with Marner.

Again, you're using hindsight as a tool to prove your point. It doesn't hold water man. If Eichel was still producing at .8ppg and the Sabres were still bottom dwellers, the contract would be seen as a huge over payment. Instead you're looking at his current numbers and stating "look at the production they're getting for 10 million a year"...Yeah, that's good for them...but it's not something that you can say to Matthews and expect it to move the needle in your direction. All Matthews has to say is "yeah well, I've outperformed him this year(one less year of service)..I outperformed him last season...and I'm going to get better too. I'm a superior hockey player. Show me the money!"

 

[disco]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_QbvgHHcN8
Molson Canadian presents The Leaf: Blueprint Moment #12 - Proud

 

[mr grieves]

Look, I'm happy these guys are Leafs, but I'd like management to be able to do what other teams have done and get some sort of a  break while signing players. Otherwise it puts the Leafs at a disadvantage going forward.  If the Leafs are the only team in the league that can't seem to convince players to take less (or give up more UFA years), then the Leafs are absolutely at a disadvantage. You would think the fact the Leafs are able to pay upwards of 95% of the contract in bonus money, making it lockout proof would be another advantage they could use to get the cap hit or term more in their favour, but again, it seems this makes no difference.

The premise of my post was that the Leafs are really unlikely to be the only team in the league affected by these trends. Other players and their agents are watching, how they behave is changing, how teams react will also change--the market is shifting. The Leafs, maybe because of the randomness of time, the luck of drafting so many elite players so quickly, or the waterfall effect of signing Tavares, have been party to 3 potentially significant trends--some new, others returns to old ways of doing things. And with Marner, maybe it will be a fourth.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Also, a player taking less than market value isn't really a sign of good "GMing"...It's simply a guy that accepted less than he was worth for whatever reason.

Why there's such an obsession about years 6-8 is beyond me. This team will be a completely different animal by then.

 

[Zee]

Look, I'm happy these guys are Leafs, but I'd like management to be able to do what other teams have done and get some sort of a  break while signing players. Otherwise it puts the Leafs at a disadvantage going forward.  If the Leafs are the only team in the league that can't seem to convince players to take less (or give up more UFA years), then the Leafs are absolutely at a disadvantage. You would think the fact the Leafs are able to pay upwards of 95% of the contract in bonus money, making it lockout proof would be another advantage they could use to get the cap hit or term more in their favour, but again, it seems this makes no difference.

The premise of my post was that the Leafs are really unlikely to be the only team in the league affected by these trends. Other players and their agents are watching, how they behave is changing, how teams react will also change--the market is shifting. The Leafs, maybe because of the randomness of time, the luck of drafting so many elite players so quickly, or the waterfall effect of signing Tavares, have been party to 3 potentially significant trends--some new, others returns to old ways of doing things. And with Marner, maybe it will be a fourth.

I guess we'll see if the Leafs are on the leading edge and every RFA going forward will react the same way, or if they're the only ones.  Will be very interesting to see the numbers and term these next crop of RFAs come in at (Marner the exception since we all know where that's going)

 

[Kin]

Again, you're using hindsight as a tool to prove your point. It doesn't hold water man. If Eichel was still producing at .8ppg and the Sabres were still bottom dwellers, the contract would be seen as a huge over payment. Instead you're looking at his current numbers and stating "look at the production they're getting for 10 million a year"...Yeah, that's good for them...but it's not something that you can say to Matthews and expect it to move the needle in your direction. All Matthews has to say is "yeah well, I've outperformed him this year(one less year of service)..I outperformed him last season...and I'm going to get better too. I'm a superior hockey player. Show me the money!"

Well that's the entirety of the issue here. The people crying about this deal aren't basing it in the realities of the negotiations. They're not taking the simple reality that the "value" of a player fluctuates from market to market.  There's no substantive criticism. It's entirely "BUT I WANTED MORE!"

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Look, I'm happy these guys are Leafs, but I'd like management to be able to do what other teams have done and get some sort of a  break while signing players. Otherwise it puts the Leafs at a disadvantage going forward.  If the Leafs are the only team in the league that can't seem to convince players to take less (or give up more UFA years), then the Leafs are absolutely at a disadvantage. You would think the fact the Leafs are able to pay upwards of 95% of the contract in bonus money, making it lockout proof would be another advantage they could use to get the cap hit or term more in their favour, but again, it seems this makes no difference.

The premise of my post was that the Leafs are really unlikely to be the only team in the league affected by these trends. Other players and their agents are watching, how they behave is changing, how teams react will also change--the market is shifting. The Leafs, maybe because of the randomness of time, the luck of drafting so many elite players so quickly, or the waterfall effect of signing Tavares, have been party to 3 potentially significant trends--some new, others returns to old ways of doing things. And with Marner, maybe it will be a fourth.

(Marner the exception since we all know where that's going)

Please enlighten us. I'm not sure what's going to happen.

 

[Kin]

Also, a player taking less than market value isn't really a sign of good "GMing"...It's simply a guy that accepted less than he was worth for whatever reason.

Why there's such an obsession about years 6-8 is beyond me. This team will be a completely different animal by then.

Not only that but there will be a new CBA by then as well and we have literally no idea what might be in it. It may be good to have guys locked in but it also may be good to have flexibility and a chance to renegotiate deals sooner. Either way, reading deals entirely on the basis of their effect on the team 6-8 years from now is lunacy.

 

[Zee]

Look, I'm happy these guys are Leafs, but I'd like management to be able to do what other teams have done and get some sort of a  break while signing players. Otherwise it puts the Leafs at a disadvantage going forward.  If the Leafs are the only team in the league that can't seem to convince players to take less (or give up more UFA years), then the Leafs are absolutely at a disadvantage. You would think the fact the Leafs are able to pay upwards of 95% of the contract in bonus money, making it lockout proof would be another advantage they could use to get the cap hit or term more in their favour, but again, it seems this makes no difference.

The premise of my post was that the Leafs are really unlikely to be the only team in the league affected by these trends. Other players and their agents are watching, how they behave is changing, how teams react will also change--the market is shifting. The Leafs, maybe because of the randomness of time, the luck of drafting so many elite players so quickly, or the waterfall effect of signing Tavares, have been party to 3 potentially significant trends--some new, others returns to old ways of doing things. And with Marner, maybe it will be a fourth.

(Marner the exception since we all know where that's going)

Please enlighten us. I'm not sure what's going to happen.

He'll either

a) get about the same contract in both terms and money as Matthews.  So 5 years, just over 11million
b) take a short term bridge contract of 2-3 years for less than 10.

 

[Kin]

I think something worth saying, outside of whether or not this deal is good or not(insert world's largest one-handed Shake-Weight motion), is that for all the talk about wanting these guys to sign longer term deals we do at some level have to accept that all the CBA gives a team is a certain amount of time. If a guy wants to be a free agent, he wants to be a free agent and it doesn't make them bad or disloyal, it just means they want to experience a certain amount of freedom in their career.

For all of the people who said that one of the "risks" of drafting Matthews was that he might want to explore his options when he could...well, look at Mitch Marner for evidence that the risk there exists regardless of where someone is born. It's pointless to try and guess what an 18 year old might do or feel at 25. Priorities shift, perspectives change. Matthews was willing to sign an 8 year deal, he just didn't want to at an artificially low rate when the financial landscape of the league might look very differently in 5 years time. That's an eminently reasonable position to take for a young person and it's not one that should be married to the idea of him somehow taking less money than he's worth in the meantime.

 

[TimKerr]

Eichel's first 2 seasons:

113 points, .795 ppg

8 years, 10 million AAV, what a win for Buffalo!

Nylander's first two seasons:

122 points, .748 ppg

6 years, 6.9 million AAV, WAHHHHHHH WHY CAN'T DUBAS SIGN GOOD DEALS!

What he said.

I don't see what he said unless someone quotes it.

With respect to Eichel's contract, he's still under contract for 2 seasons while Nylander gets to hit the open market and get paid large.  There's tremendous value in that.  Leafs might not be able to afford Nylander in 5 years, while Buffalo will still have Eichel.

The Leafs paid $3M less per season for someone with better stats. The fact that Eichel is now playing well has nothing to do with it. My point is, when the contract was signed Nylander was probably a little under value and in 2 years will be WAY under value, while Eichel is just living up to his contract this year only. If he reverts back to his previous 2 years than the Sabres WAY overpaid. You keep saying how much of a value Eichel's contract is because they bought UFA years, but there is no definitive proof they bought good UFA years.

 

[Zee]

Eichel's first 2 seasons:

113 points, .795 ppg

8 years, 10 million AAV, what a win for Buffalo!

Nylander's first two seasons:

122 points, .748 ppg

6 years, 6.9 million AAV, WAHHHHHHH WHY CAN'T DUBAS SIGN GOOD DEALS!

What he said.

I don't see what he said unless someone quotes it.

With respect to Eichel's contract, he's still under contract for 2 seasons while Nylander gets to hit the open market and get paid large.  There's tremendous value in that.  Leafs might not be able to afford Nylander in 5 years, while Buffalo will still have Eichel.

The Leafs paid $3M less per season for someone with better stats. The fact that Eichel is now playing well has nothing to do with it. My point is, when the contract was signed Nylander was probably a little under value and in 2 years will be WAY under value, while Eichel is just living up to his contract this year only. If he reverts back to his previous 2 years than the Sabres WAY overpaid. You keep saying how much of a value Eichel's contract is because they bought UFA years, but there is no definitive proof they bought good UFA years.

Not sure I'm following your logic here.  First of all Eichel's $10M contract kicked in last season only, and he was nearly a point a game player.  Nylander's contract of 6.9 kicks in this year, and he's nowhere close to a point a game.  Eichel this season (2nd year of his 10M) and he's over a point a game, so he's not just living up to his contract, he's already exceeding it.

Sure, there's inherent risk that maybe he doesn't perform that well in seasons 3-8, but can't you say the same thing about Nylander?  So far Eichel has improved every season so there's no reason to believe he'll suddenly drop off in his mid 20s.  If he continues to produce at a PPG pace or better, he's well worth the 10.  If Nylander never gets above 60 points, is he worth 7?

 

[bustaheims]

Not sure I'm following your logic here.  First of all Eichel's $10M contract kicked in last season only, and he was nearly a point a game player.  Nylander's contract of 6.9 kicks in this year, and he's nowhere close to a point a game.  Eichel this season (2nd year of his 10M) and he's over a point a game, so he's not just living up to his contract, he's already exceeding it.

This season is the first season under Eichel's 8 year, $10 per contract. Last season was the final year of his ELC.

 

[Zee]

Not sure I'm following your logic here.  First of all Eichel's $10M contract kicked in last season only, and he was nearly a point a game player.  Nylander's contract of 6.9 kicks in this year, and he's nowhere close to a point a game.  Eichel this season (2nd year of his 10M) and he's over a point a game, so he's not just living up to his contract, he's already exceeding it.

This season is the first season under Eichel's 8 year, $10 per contract. Last season was the final year of his ELC.

Yep my bad.