Mitch Marner: what now?
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
- Status
Kin
New member
And, by the way, the Leafs are absolutely 100% free to say they don't like the Cap. Any day Tanenbaum or either of the phone CEOs could say that they think that it's unfair to us, Leafs fans, for them to not be able to pay salaries proportionate to their ticket prices when compared to the rest of the league. That it's ludicrous for them to maybe have to lose a player because the League won't let them pay him the money they can clearly afford to pay him.
But so long as they're content to not take it on and keep ticket prices where they are then I don't think Marner or anyone should sign with them for less than a fair market value.
But so long as they're content to not take it on and keep ticket prices where they are then I don't think Marner or anyone should sign with them for less than a fair market value.
bustaheims
Active member
Bates said:
A soft cap, that includes multiple exemptions and exceptions. Not an apples to apples comparisons to the NHL's hard cap by anything but the most simplistic measures.
Nik the Trik said:
As a Leafs fan, the salary cap is a terrible, terrible thing and I wish we could dispense with it. I hate worrying that paying Marner more than Kucherov and Stamkos puts us at a competitive disadvantage against Tampa (and possibly Florida soon). And, of course, already paying Tavares and Matthews more than those guys does the same. After waiting so long for a talent like Marner, to lose him to the system would be dreadful. Without a cap, the Leafs would be the Lakers/Yankees of the NHL. I have no doubt that year-over-year they'd have a better team and a better chance at the cup.
Still, despite not knowing the internals of how league decisions get made, I conjecture that if the Leafs were to make a public stink about the cap then it wouldn't actually bring about any change (because a super-majority of franchises would be against it) but would cause interpersonal problems between owners and managers, possibly create negative league publicity and possibly damage the Leafs ability to make change in the future by getting people they need on their side irritated. In most businesses, airing problems/complaints publicly doesn't work out well and is a sign of poor management/internal problems. So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not the least bit surprised the Leafs are acting the way they are and I wouldn't be surprised if I acted the same way in their place. I wouldn't be surprised if there was nothing they could do about the situation.
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
I'm not surprised by how the Leafs have acted either. They voted for the cap, the idea that there was any real opposition to it on their part that was aired in private is almost entirely unfounded(and was probably misinterpreted) and no Leafs ownership in the last half-century has a real record of giving a damn about the fans outside of as walking wallets so "surprise" doesn't come into play.
I'm straight up saying they've played a part in establishing this environment.
Guilt Trip
Active member
I'd be shocked if someone paid him 11+ million. Only way he gets anything close to 11 is an 8 year deal and thats really pushing it.
Highlander
Active member
Time for luxury tax. Let the Rich pay...just like Sunny Ways.bustaheims said:
bustaheims
Active member
Zee said:
That caught my eye, too - but, it?s Kypreos, which means it?s probably garbage.
Nik the Trik said:
Do you see a downside in calling his bluff though? I mean what's the other alternative, just caving now and giving him the $10.5-11mil that he'd only maybe get via an offer sheet?
Bill_Berg
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
What about as trade pieces? Mackenzie also commented he didn't like the prospects of a team with 3 11 million dollar players. The Leafs are top heavy, maybe with four firsts as trade bait they can even out the roster. Hard to trade a first that's four years away I suppose.
- Status