Mitch Marner: what now?

[Kin]

Nik, from the collection of comments you?ve made about Marner and Nylander, it *seems* like you are *hoping* that they sign contracts that are much higher than other commentators predict.  For instance, Mirtle predicted Nylander in the 6.5-7 range (as I recall) and it seemed as though you were pushing Draisatl when others were comparing with Ehlers and Pasternak.  A number of analysts have suggested roughly 9-9.5 for roughly 6 years for Marner is reasonable.  You seem to be talking favorably about numbers in the 11 million range, which would put him in the top 5 players in the league at any position.

My question isn?t about who is going to wind up right or wrong (we?ll find out soon enough, but I don?t really care!) or what method is best for projecting player salaries or who is comparable to who.

Ok, for the most part when I've talked about these salaries I've mainly been focusing on how comparables work and what I think will happen. Why that separates me from some people is that a lot of your analysts are working under a couple of assumptions I think are false, namely:

1. That there's any good reason why a RFA player somehow "deserves" less money than a comparable UFA player.

2. That despite the vastly disparate revenues between clubs, there's no reason why a player for a high revenue club should be paid more than one for a lower revenue one.

(There's a third issue specific to Nylander which was that I think it made sense for him to think of himself as a C who'd simply been asked to play RW and so he should have been compared to other C's and that justified a Draisaitl-like negotiating position)

Both of those things, right now at least, will drive the salaries of the guys like Nylander, Matthews and Marner higher than fans here might hope. The fact that Nylander got significantly more than the comps people wanted to use, that Matthews got what people were hoping would be a 8 year term on a 5 year deal...I think that validates how I've tended to try to analyze these things.

  Rather, I can?t help but notice that you always seem to be on the high side of just about everyone else and it seems from your tone that you?d be happier if Marner got 11, 12 million than if he got 9 million.

Am I getting that wrong?

How much money Marner gets paid isn't really something I'm too worried about. I still, like other people, tend to be of the opinion that you keep your stars and try to build around them. I think there's a chance we see big revenue growth(with the new US TV deal) over the next few years and so a lot of the concerns about balance will seem exaggerated.

Obviously my rooting interest as a Leafs fan would like to see all of these guys sign for much less than fair market value but A) I don't think that's realistic and B) I'm not at all interested in letting that sour me on these guys asking for a fair market value. They want to get paid appropriately according to the revenues they're generating and I think it'd be ridiculous for me to think less of them for that because of a ridiculous system the owners implemented(and were willing to shut down the league for).

 

[Zee]

Are there any teams that have 3 forwards combined to make ~40% of the cap?

Believe Leafs would be the first.

 

[Kin]

Are there any teams that have 3 forwards combined to make ~40% of the cap?

There are definitely teams with three guys whose cap % when the deals were signed would have amounted to that.

Beyond that the closest I can find is the 15-16 Blackhawks where Toews, Hossa and Kane were at 37.8%

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

The RFA salary ?system? artificially devalues performance when players are at their peak, and the UFA market overvalues current performance from past achievements.

It?s good that RFA contracts are trending up for the superstars. Sucks a bit that we have three in the vanguard, but this is the new reality and honestly, Nylander should?ve been paid more.

It's kind of funny that the contract people were complaining about turns out to be the best value deal of the 3. Imagine if the Leafs had signed Marner last summer at the reported 8x$9M before Nylander signed.  Nylander would have demanded something closer to that number since the previous 2 seasons were comparable to Marner and he would have been justified in doing so.

I have a hard time believing management wouldn't bite on that. I mean, why not bet on your stars? And if I were a player why wouldn't I bet on myself? Generally players of Marner's ilk will have better 3rd yr seasons than 2nd, so why sign a contract early?

My thinking all along is that the Leafs are going to have to overpay Marner, and probably significantly -- maybe up into the 11s. 

Like Nik said awhile back in this thread, they set the clock running when they signed JT.  They can't burn up his prime waiting for one of four 1sts to maybe develop into 80% of the player Marner is already, or using one or more of those 1sts to trade for that player.

That's fine, but they still have to call the bluff.  The season doesn't start until October.  Let him sit, if the imaginary offer sheet comes in at between 10-11 then the Leafs match.  If no offer sheet comes in what leg does Marner have to stand on saying the "market" deems him worth that much?

So do the Leafs want to play chicken with one of their star players?  I'm still of the opinion that paying your star players is never a mistake.  I'd rather "overpay" Marner than say someone like Kapanen. 

Give Marner $11ish million a year and be done with it.

What's the harm?  There's a market system in place, if he thinks he can get 11 somewhere else go and prove your point.  Will he be so upset that the Leafs went through this process that he doesn't perform to the best of his abilities?  Teams and players go through these sorts of things all the time and for the most part, players stay with their teams long term despite the contract battles.

You think Nylander suddenly forgot how to play hockey when he came back in December?  Goes to the World Championships and lights it up.  Coincidence?  I think not.

 

[Zee]

The RFA salary ?system? artificially devalues performance when players are at their peak, and the UFA market overvalues current performance from past achievements.

It?s good that RFA contracts are trending up for the superstars. Sucks a bit that we have three in the vanguard, but this is the new reality and honestly, Nylander should?ve been paid more.

It's kind of funny that the contract people were complaining about turns out to be the best value deal of the 3. Imagine if the Leafs had signed Marner last summer at the reported 8x$9M before Nylander signed.  Nylander would have demanded something closer to that number since the previous 2 seasons were comparable to Marner and he would have been justified in doing so.

I have a hard time believing management wouldn't bite on that. I mean, why not bet on your stars? And if I were a player why wouldn't I bet on myself? Generally players of Marner's ilk will have better 3rd yr seasons than 2nd, so why sign a contract early?

My thinking all along is that the Leafs are going to have to overpay Marner, and probably significantly -- maybe up into the 11s. 

Like Nik said awhile back in this thread, they set the clock running when they signed JT.  They can't burn up his prime waiting for one of four 1sts to maybe develop into 80% of the player Marner is already, or using one or more of those 1sts to trade for that player.

That's fine, but they still have to call the bluff.  The season doesn't start until October.  Let him sit, if the imaginary offer sheet comes in at between 10-11 then the Leafs match.  If no offer sheet comes in what leg does Marner have to stand on saying the "market" deems him worth that much?

So do the Leafs want to play chicken with one of their star players?  I'm still of the opinion that paying your star players is never a mistake.  I'd rather "overpay" Marner than say someone like Kapanen. 

Give Marner $11ish million a year and be done with it.

What's the harm?  There's a market system in place, if he thinks he can get 11 somewhere else go and prove your point.  Will he be so upset that the Leafs went through this process that he doesn't perform to the best of his abilities?  Teams and players go through these sorts of things all the time and for the most part, players stay with their teams long term despite the contract battles.

You think Nylander suddenly forgot how to play hockey when he came back in December?  Goes to the World Championships and lights it up.  Coincidence?  I think not.

So Nylander was dogging it because he was pissed the Leafs made him wait?  That says alot about a guy's character.  Nylander's bad season was due to: 1. missing 2 months and being "behind" everyone else 2. Not playing with Matthews all year.

 

[Coco-puffs]

3.  Bad shooting luck.


Lets face it, his first month or so back he was totally out of sync and while we can say that is totally expected in hindsight it definitely hurt.  After that initial period he played fine- tilted the ice in the Leafs favour but did suffer from some back shooting luck (both himself and his linemates).  Part of that time was with Kadri injured, so he wasn't with Matthews down the stretch either.

 

[Zee]

3.  Bad shooting luck.


Lets face it, his first month or so back he was totally out of sync and while we can say that is totally expected in hindsight it definitely hurt.  After that initial period he played fine- tilted the ice in the Leafs favour but did suffer from some back shooting luck (both himself and his linemates).  Part of that time was with Kadri injured, so he wasn't with Matthews down the stretch either.

Nylander got screwed by the coaching for sure.  No Matthews and no opportunity on the PP with guys like Matthews or Tavares.  I think we'll see a huge difference in Willy this year, I predict he'll be close to or at a point a game.

 

[Bates]

The RFA salary ?system? artificially devalues performance when players are at their peak, and the UFA market overvalues current performance from past achievements.

It?s good that RFA contracts are trending up for the superstars. Sucks a bit that we have three in the vanguard, but this is the new reality and honestly, Nylander should?ve been paid more.

It's kind of funny that the contract people were complaining about turns out to be the best value deal of the 3. Imagine if the Leafs had signed Marner last summer at the reported 8x$9M before Nylander signed.  Nylander would have demanded something closer to that number since the previous 2 seasons were comparable to Marner and he would have been justified in doing so.

I have a hard time believing management wouldn't bite on that. I mean, why not bet on your stars? And if I were a player why wouldn't I bet on myself? Generally players of Marner's ilk will have better 3rd yr seasons than 2nd, so why sign a contract early?

My thinking all along is that the Leafs are going to have to overpay Marner, and probably significantly -- maybe up into the 11s. 

Like Nik said awhile back in this thread, they set the clock running when they signed JT.  They can't burn up his prime waiting for one of four 1sts to maybe develop into 80% of the player Marner is already, or using one or more of those 1sts to trade for that player.

That's fine, but they still have to call the bluff.  The season doesn't start until October.  Let him sit, if the imaginary offer sheet comes in at between 10-11 then the Leafs match.  If no offer sheet comes in what leg does Marner have to stand on saying the "market" deems him worth that much?

So do the Leafs want to play chicken with one of their star players?  I'm still of the opinion that paying your star players is never a mistake.  I'd rather "overpay" Marner than say someone like Kapanen. 

Give Marner $11ish million a year and be done with it.

What's the harm?  There's a market system in place, if he thinks he can get 11 somewhere else go and prove your point.  Will he be so upset that the Leafs went through this process that he doesn't perform to the best of his abilities?  Teams and players go through these sorts of things all the time and for the most part, players stay with their teams long term despite the contract battles.

You think Nylander suddenly forgot how to play hockey when he came back in December?  Goes to the World Championships and lights it up.  Coincidence?  I think not.

To be fair he light it up at shinny hockey against minnows.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

The RFA salary ?system? artificially devalues performance when players are at their peak, and the UFA market overvalues current performance from past achievements.

It?s good that RFA contracts are trending up for the superstars. Sucks a bit that we have three in the vanguard, but this is the new reality and honestly, Nylander should?ve been paid more.

It's kind of funny that the contract people were complaining about turns out to be the best value deal of the 3. Imagine if the Leafs had signed Marner last summer at the reported 8x$9M before Nylander signed.  Nylander would have demanded something closer to that number since the previous 2 seasons were comparable to Marner and he would have been justified in doing so.

I have a hard time believing management wouldn't bite on that. I mean, why not bet on your stars? And if I were a player why wouldn't I bet on myself? Generally players of Marner's ilk will have better 3rd yr seasons than 2nd, so why sign a contract early?

My thinking all along is that the Leafs are going to have to overpay Marner, and probably significantly -- maybe up into the 11s. 

Like Nik said awhile back in this thread, they set the clock running when they signed JT.  They can't burn up his prime waiting for one of four 1sts to maybe develop into 80% of the player Marner is already, or using one or more of those 1sts to trade for that player.

That's fine, but they still have to call the bluff.  The season doesn't start until October.  Let him sit, if the imaginary offer sheet comes in at between 10-11 then the Leafs match.  If no offer sheet comes in what leg does Marner have to stand on saying the "market" deems him worth that much?

So do the Leafs want to play chicken with one of their star players?  I'm still of the opinion that paying your star players is never a mistake.  I'd rather "overpay" Marner than say someone like Kapanen. 

Give Marner $11ish million a year and be done with it.

What's the harm?  There's a market system in place, if he thinks he can get 11 somewhere else go and prove your point.  Will he be so upset that the Leafs went through this process that he doesn't perform to the best of his abilities?  Teams and players go through these sorts of things all the time and for the most part, players stay with their teams long term despite the contract battles.

You think Nylander suddenly forgot how to play hockey when he came back in December?  Goes to the World Championships and lights it up.  Coincidence?  I think not.

So Nylander was dogging it because he was pissed the Leafs made him wait?  That says alot about a guy's character.  Nylander's bad season was due to: 1. missing 2 months and being "behind" everyone else 2. Not playing with Matthews all year.

Sure, there are conditioning, timing and general game shape considerations.  Though everyone isn't on some infinite trajectory where they just keep getting better as the season goes on and Nylander couldn't catch up.  I have no doubt that the process he went through weighed on him and affected his performance. 

 

[mr grieves]

This all assumes Marner wants to leave Toronto.  And there are many reasons why he may well not want to.

Signing an offer sheet doesn't necessarily mean he wants to leave Toronto -- it might mean he wants to use what little leverage he has an RFA to force the team that holds his rights to pay him what he thinks he's worth.

Not that I think Dubas ought to look at it that way.

If he really doesn't want to leave, and that's his bottom line, he won't risk it by signing an offer sheet.  If OTOH that's not his ultimate bottom line, he will.

That reasoning is too abstract / philosophical for my tastes.

If his camp is convinced that he's worth more than the Leafs' best pre-OS offer and that the Leafs wouldn't dare losing a player as talented as Mitch Marner, they could certainly sign an offer sheet expecting, without much further thought, that the Leafs would simply match, getting them the salary they think Marner deserves.

And I don't think they'd be wrong. It's 50/50.

 

[mr grieves]

Are there any teams that have 3 forwards combined to make ~40% of the cap?

There are definitely teams with three guys whose cap % when the deals were signed would have amounted to that.

Beyond that the closest I can find is the 15-16 Blackhawks where Toews, Hossa and Kane were at 37.8%

This is why I think Mirtle was on to something when he said, in the most recent Leafs Report podcast, that the Leafs could sign Marner to something like what his side's asking, as long as they reconcile themselves to taking a step back for a season or two.

They could have 3 players consuming 40% of the cap next season, but they'll have a pretty bleak supporting cast and will have to set expectations... well, a lot lower than a Cup. Three seasons from now, cap growth would probably give them enough breathing room to assemble complementary players that aren't several tiers below what other top teams in the league can put together.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Are there any teams that have 3 forwards combined to make ~40% of the cap?

There are definitely teams with three guys whose cap % when the deals were signed would have amounted to that.

Beyond that the closest I can find is the 15-16 Blackhawks where Toews, Hossa and Kane were at 37.8%

This is why I think Mirtle was on to something when he said, in the most recent Leafs Report podcast, that the Leafs could sign Marner to something like what his side's asking, as long as they reconcile themselves to taking a step back for a season or two.

They could have 3 players consuming 40% of the cap next season, but they'll have a pretty bleak supporting cast and will have to set expectations... well, a lot lower than a Cup. Three seasons from now, cap growth would probably give them enough breathing room to assemble complementary players that aren't several tiers below what other top teams in the league can put together.

If they don't sign Marner, they would be taking a step back anyway.

 

[mr grieves]

Are there any teams that have 3 forwards combined to make ~40% of the cap?

There are definitely teams with three guys whose cap % when the deals were signed would have amounted to that.

Beyond that the closest I can find is the 15-16 Blackhawks where Toews, Hossa and Kane were at 37.8%

This is why I think Mirtle was on to something when he said, in the most recent Leafs Report podcast, that the Leafs could sign Marner to something like what his side's asking, as long as they reconcile themselves to taking a step back for a season or two.

They could have 3 players consuming 40% of the cap next season, but they'll have a pretty bleak supporting cast and will have to set expectations... well, a lot lower than a Cup. Three seasons from now, cap growth would probably give them enough breathing room to assemble complementary players that aren't several tiers below what other top teams in the league can put together.

If they don't sign Marner, they would be taking a step back anyway.

Sure, but whether they'd be able then take steps forward -- and quickly -- is different under a scenario where Marner's making $11m on the Leafs vs. one where he's making that on the Rangers & the Leafs have their four firsts plus a UFA that gives you 80% of Marner for less than his contract ask.

 

[Frank E]

Are there any teams that have 3 forwards combined to make ~40% of the cap?

There are definitely teams with three guys whose cap % when the deals were signed would have amounted to that.

Beyond that the closest I can find is the 15-16 Blackhawks where Toews, Hossa and Kane were at 37.8%

This is why I think Mirtle was on to something when he said, in the most recent Leafs Report podcast, that the Leafs could sign Marner to something like what his side's asking, as long as they reconcile themselves to taking a step back for a season or two.

They could have 3 players consuming 40% of the cap next season, but they'll have a pretty bleak supporting cast and will have to set expectations... well, a lot lower than a Cup. Three seasons from now, cap growth would probably give them enough breathing room to assemble complementary players that aren't several tiers below what other top teams in the league can put together.

If they don't sign Marner, they would be taking a step back anyway.

I'm not so sure about that, I think that would depend on how they use that $10m in cap space.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Just a thought.
For every million Marner signs over the Leafs want, another roster player goes. Assuming Brown is already gone for a pick or someone making a million less then him, you can add Hyman to that list as he'll have to be replaced with an ELC. There's your extra 2 mill to pay him 11.5 from 9.5.

 

[princedpw]

Nik, from the collection of comments you?ve made about Marner and Nylander, it *seems* like you are *hoping* that they sign contracts that are much higher than other commentators predict.  For instance, Mirtle predicted Nylander in the 6.5-7 range (as I recall) and it seemed as though you were pushing Draisatl when others were comparing with Ehlers and Pasternak.  A number of analysts have suggested roughly 9-9.5 for roughly 6 years for Marner is reasonable.  You seem to be talking favorably about numbers in the 11 million range, which would put him in the top 5 players in the league at any position.

My question isn?t about who is going to wind up right or wrong (we?ll find out soon enough, but I don?t really care!) or what method is best for projecting player salaries or who is comparable to who.

Ok, for the most part when I've talked about these salaries I've mainly been focusing on how comparables work and what I think will happen. Why that separates me from some people is that a lot of your analysts are working under a couple of assumptions I think are false, namely:

1. That there's any good reason why a RFA player somehow "deserves" less money than a comparable UFA player.

I see. For me, it's not about "deserves."  Rather, it's simply about the differing market mechanisms (as stupid as one might think they are) that are in place and the impact they are likely to have ... if the NHL market is "efficient" which it certainly is not .  Given the current NHL economic system, it would largely make sense to me that an RFA would be paid "what an equally talented UFA is paid minus very, very roughly the value of the compensation for switching teams (ie: minus the value of 4 first-rounders for a contract > 10.5 million)" or something somewhat along those lines. But the fact that teams also seem to more-or-less be colluding on not offer-sheeting players may further drive down what RFAs can demand.  And on the other side, the fact that a player can hold out drives up his value. 

2. That despite the vastly disparate revenues between clubs, there's no reason why a player for a high revenue club should be paid more than one for a lower revenue one.

... I agree with that one --- because the players have agreed to compensation system in which all teams must operate in the same salary window and because that window is defined by league-wide revenues rather than team-by-team revenues, it makes sense that individual player compensation is defined by league-wide revenues rather than individual team revenues. 

(Is there a typo above by any chance?  Did you mean you thought that a player playing for a high-revenue club should be paid more than a player playing for a low revenue club?)

Both of those things, right now at least, will drive the salaries of the guys like Nylander, Matthews and Marner higher than fans here might hope. The fact that Nylander got significantly more than the comps people wanted to use, that Matthews got what people were hoping would be a 8 year term on a 5 year deal...I think that validates how I've tended to try to analyze these things.

I've looked at analysis from the Athletic.  For example, here's Mirtle from May 29, 2018 on Nylander:

https://theathletic.com/371189/2018/05/29/mirtle-breaking-down-what-william-nylanders-second-contract-should-look-like-for-the-leafs/

Bottom line is that he projected 7 million on a 6- or 7-year deal, which was spot on.  (He also projected the dollar amount for a bridge contract.)  He obtained that by taking a range of comparables from Draisaitl as a bit of an outlier on the high end to Ehlers and Drouin on the low end. 

I also found a prediction for Matthews contract in July 2018 (obviously, a very long time before Matthews wound up signing):

https://theathletic.com/384120/2018/07/12/mirtle-auston-matthews-is-going-to-get-paid-by-the-maple-leafs-but-whats-the-right-contract/

His predication for an 8-year contract was 11.7-12.2.  So, I agree that that one was low given he only signed for 5 years.  He didn't make a prediction for a 5-year contract so it's tough to say exactly how far off he was.  Still, the ballpark seems right for a prediction made 10 months early.

So anyway, there are a couple of predictions for Marner.  I couldn't find a Mirtle one from a quick search, but here's one from Ian Tulloch:

https://theathletic.com/988241/2019/05/22/tulloch-a-breakdown-of-what-mitch-marner-should-earn-on-his-next-contract-based-on-comparables/

I think it's interesting that he uses a ranking based on points/gm as his primary metric --- ie, Marner finished 15th in the league in points/game last year.  Here's his bottom line:

At the end of the day, it looks like a fair contract for Marner based on historical comparables is somewhere between 11-12 percent of the cap on a long-term deal, which would be between $9-10 million. With Kane and Draisaitl as his closest comparables, it?s difficult to imagine him getting much less than 11 percent of the cap ($9.1 million), but it?s also hard to find evidence that he?s worth more than 12 percent ($9.9 million).

If he signs a six-year deal with Toronto, it will probably end up on the lower end of this spectrum (closer to $9 million), whereas an eight-year deal would push his AAV to the higher end of the spectrum (closer to $10 million).

So 9-10 million.

Now, it may be that the market is moving this year. I have no doubt that if Marner gets offer-sheeting, it will up his compensation.  Given that there just haven't been offer-sheets in the past, if they suddenly materialize this year then it's going to screw up any analysis based on historical analysis.  But, it's kind of impossible for me to factor that in so I'm willing to go with Tulloch's analysis based on the Athletic's solid track record.

How much money Marner gets paid isn't really something I'm too worried about. I still, like other people, tend to be of the opinion that you keep your stars and try to build around them. I think there's a chance we see big revenue growth(with the new US TV deal) over the next few years and so a lot of the concerns about balance will seem exaggerated.

Obviously my rooting interest as a Leafs fan would like to see all of these guys sign for much less than fair market value but A) I don't think that's realistic and B) I'm not at all interested in letting that sour me on these guys asking for a fair market value. They want to get paid appropriately according to the revenues they're generating and I think it'd be ridiculous for me to think less of them for that because of a ridiculous system the owners implemented(and were willing to shut down the league for).

Fair!

I don't think less of them, but I'm hoping they wind up taking less because it helps the leafs competitive chances ...

but given how the playoffs went last year, Im increasingly feeling that worrying about optimizing team composition is a waste of mental energy....

 

[Kin]

I see. For me, it's not about "deserves."

Well, I think it should be to some extent or another. I think in any negotiation of this sort a player should be able to try and figure out what revenues they're generating and figure out what their fair cut of that is. A jersey sold for a RFA player or a ticket to watch that player doesn't generate less revenue for the NHL then that of a UFA player so a player is under no obligation to pretend otherwise when trying to figure out his value.

... I agree with that one --- because the players have agreed to compensation system in which all teams must operate in the same salary window and because that window is defined by league-wide revenues rather than team-by-team revenues, it makes sense that individual player compensation is defined by league-wide revenues rather than individual team revenues. 

I think saying the players "agreed" to those systems when they were the result of pretty ethically dubious lockouts is a stretch but even beyond that all that was in the agreed to CBAs was that teams like the Rangers and Leafs are allowed to hamstring themselves via total compensation if they choose. Short of the maximum salary, there's nothing restricting what players can ask from a particular team.

Likewise, the Leafs are more than free to take the opposing negotiating position. It doesn't generally seem to be working very well for them because it's indulging in a fiction. It's a simple fact of reality that hockey players are "worth" more in certain markets than in others. The NHL's decision to not acknowledge that in their CBA is not something the players are morally obligated to have tie their hands in negotiations.

Bottom line is that he projected 7 million on a 6- or 7-year deal, which was spot on.  (He also projected the dollar amount for a bridge contract.)  He obtained that by taking a range of comparables from Draisaitl as a bit of an outlier on the high end to Ehlers and Drouin on the low end. 

Mirtle's a clever guy, not clever enough for me to want to buy a membership in the Athletic but still, and I'm glad his projection was close to reality. I think that's vastly different than a lot of the people who were here and exclusively using guys like Ehlers and Pastrnak as comparisons and thought the idea of Nylander at 7 was outrageous.

I never made any serious predictions for what Nylander got, all I said was that a range of comparisons were valid and I wouldn't be surprised if his deal came down within that range.

At the end of the day, it looks like a fair contract for Marner based on historical comparables is somewhere between 11-12 percent of the cap on a long-term deal, which would be between $9-10 million. With Kane and Draisaitl as his closest comparables, it?s difficult to imagine him getting much less than 11 percent of the cap ($9.1 million), but it?s also hard to find evidence that he?s worth more than 12 percent ($9.9 million).

If he signs a six-year deal with Toronto, it will probably end up on the lower end of this spectrum (closer to $9 million), whereas an eight-year deal would push his AAV to the higher end of the spectrum (closer to $10 million).

I said this during the Nylander thing, it's super easy to make cases for just about any number. For instance, you say yourself that Kane is one of Marner's best comparables. And the 2nd deal Kane signed was a 5 year deal, worth 11.09% of the cap. Kane didn't sign his deal after his 88 point season. He signed it on Dec. 2nd, 2009. To date, Kane's best season total was 70 points. As best as I can tell, when Kane signed his deal he was on a 82 point pace, having scored 26 points in 26 games.

So what does that deal really tell us? Marner, coming off a better season than Kane had ever had or was projected to have(15% more scoring!) and presumably negotiating for more than three extra UFA years couldn't possibly think he should get 13.5% of the cap as opposed to 11%? If I were Marner's agent I'd think that three extra years of UFA service being only worth a 1% bump on the cap hit was unreasonable and that's before we even got to my notion about player's worth varying by market.

Anyway that's me just using one example you provided. Do you really doubt I could look back and find others that build a "reasonable" case for 11 million?

Regardless, my belief that 11 million is a perfectly believable outcome really isn't based on making a case for one other over another or historical precedent. Just that it seems to be what Marner wants and I really tend to think teams rather than players are the ones who are more likely to give in these negotiations. I've made this point before but it's much easier for Marner to find another hockey team than for the Leafs to find another player as good as Marner.

If you don't think it's reasonable for Marner to get 11 million and that he's going to be reading the Athletic articles for a definition of his worth as opposed to trying to get a fair cut of the giant amount of revenues the Leafs are generating then that's fair enough but I think the Nylander and Matthews deals tell us you're probably in for a disappointment. Personally, I'm going to go back to thinking that any number in between the low end and the high end is possible.

 

[lamajama]

A few thoughts that occurred to me last summer after I mulled over JT signing and the prediction/statement that Marner was going to
play with JT.....

- from the Leafs side, they had better sign him before last season even if it *appeared to be an over-pay* this past year

- If I was Marner I'm pretty sure I'm having a career year playing with JT so I'm signing anything.

Not exactly a genius take as it was pretty obvious if Leafs didn't sign him last summer that this was going to happen.

 

[Joe S.]

I hope Paul is happy he's managed to get a large portion of the fanbase turning on his kid.

Did I miss something? Did something happen? Did Anyone from the marner camp say anything at all?

 

[Frank E]

I hope Paul is happy he's managed to get a large portion of the fanbase turning on his kid.

Did I miss something? Did something happen? Did Anyone from the marner camp say anything at all?

I heard they told Dubas to go F a duck, and to call only when he's got a $88m cheque in hand for them.

Tough stance.