Mitch Marner: what now?

[herman]

Re Stamkos and Kucherov: it?s all timing and age. Kucherov generates huge numbers on a severely underpaid RFA deal. Tampa is paying for it now with this mega deal.

Stamkos is a purer scorer but his centering is questionable. He?s a winger at this stage in his career and his goal scoring has been largely PP and the bulk of it was during his RFA years.

What you?re seeing re: Matthews vs Marner is the reality of goals vs playmaking. The thing that Matthews has over Marner and nearly every other player in the league (in spades) is shooting the puck into the net (at even strength).

 

[Bullfrog]

Right, but something doesn't quite jive there.  Stamkos is a better pure goal scorer than Crosby and McDavid, but both of them are regarded as the better players and have better contracts than him.  Also, Kucherov's deal pays him more than Stamkos.  So if there is a premium on goal scoring centers, shouldn't Stamkos be regarded higher?

I'm going to back up a bit because I think I am going down a bit of a rat hole.  Regardless of what the dollar or term amount of the contracts are, there seems to be a favoritism towards Matthews.  It started in the first year of their contracts when they didn't give Marner bonuses but they gave them to Matthews.  I guess one could argue that it was because Matthews was a first overall pick and Marner was 4th.

I don't understand that favoritism because, to date, I fail to see what Matthews has brought to the table that Marner hasn't?

Well, ignoring that Stamkos's goal scoring rate is only about 10% better than Crosby, Crosby and McDavid are unquestionably better players.

I generally don't buy into the whole "centers are more valuable" mantra, but will admit there's evidence in favour of it. However, when you've got players of Ovechkin, Kucherov, or Kane's talent, they get paid on par with equally talented centres. But with Matthews and Marner, I would without hesitation pay Matthews more. Marner's an elite talent and deserves to be paid as such; but Matthews to me is more valuable without question. Game is on the line and you can pick one player to put on the ice: it's Matthews every time.

 

[rdowdall]

Re Stamkos and Kucherov: it?s all timing and age. Kucherov generates huge numbers on a severely underpaid RFA deal. Tampa is paying for it now with this mega deal.

Stamkos is a purer scorer but his centering is questionable. He?s a winger at this stage in his career and his goal scoring has been largely PP and the bulk of it was during his RFA years.

What you?re seeing re: Matthews vs Marner is the reality of goals vs playmaking. The thing that Matthews has over Marner and nearly every other player in the league (in spades) is shooting the puck into the net (at even strength).

They don't have to value goals over playmaking.  They don't have to treat Marner differently than Matthews.  That's just how they are deciding to go through the negotiations. 

Well, ignoring that Stamkos's goal scoring rate is only about 10% better than Crosby, Crosby and McDavid are unquestionably better players.

I generally don't buy into the whole "centers are more valuable" mantra, but will admit there's evidence in favour of it. However, when you've got players of Ovechkin, Kucherov, or Kane's talent, they get paid on par with equally talented centres. But with Matthews and Marner, I would without hesitation pay Matthews more. Marner's an elite talent and deserves to be paid as such; but Matthews to me is more valuable without question. Game is on the line and you can pick one player to put on the ice: it's Matthews every time.

Not sure I agree with that.  I remember a Florida game where they were down by two late in the game and Marner tied the game with two goals with less than 2 minutes remaining.

Regardless, I would say that in most situations where it matters, i.e. playoffs, when the game is on the line, you typically throw 5, and sometimes 6, guys on to the ice, so why not have 2 people that can break open a game on the ice?

 

[herman]

They don't have to value goals over playmaking.  They don't have to treat Marner differently than Matthews.  That's just how they are deciding to go through the negotiations.

I?m not one to lean on tradition or historicity for its own sake, but goals have always been valued higher in this game because of its mechanics. The literal win mechanism is scoring more goals than the other team, so the player who has demonstrated that he can singlehandedly (at times) put the puck into the net is going to have more value. Even the nicest pass in the world still needs to be converted by someone doing the work of eluding his check, getting to the hardest spaces and making sufficient contact with the moving puck in such a way that it goes around or through the guy dedicated to stopping such things.

Specifically to the Leafs, Marner?s output could be 85-95% covered by Nylander in the same deployment (maybe even exceeded, because we?ve never seen what Willy on PP1 looks like). Should Marner be paid 4-5M AAV more than Nylander? No one is going to come close to Matthews? production other than Tavares.

 

[bustaheims]

This report comes from Elliotte Friedman during a recent segment with Tim & Sid. The Leafs are reportedly willing to pay him $11 million, but only if the contract is a long-term one. Friedman said Marner would probably sign if it the term was shorter, but he doesn?t seem too interested in a long-term deal.

So Dreger is saying that 11 million was never broached, but Friedman is.  Am I supposed to only believe one of those guys when it comes to rumours?  I have not seen anything from Bob McKenzie or Pierre Lebrun concerning the term and dollar amount for Marner's contract.

You can believe both, since Friedman isn't saying $11M was offered, but, rather, he believes the Leafs would be willing to go there if Marner were willing to sign a longer-term deal.

 

[mr grieves]

Right, but something doesn't quite jive there.  Stamkos is a better pure goal scorer than Crosby and McDavid, but both of them are regarded as the better players and have better contracts than him.  Also, Kucherov's deal pays him more than Stamkos.  So if there is a premium on goal scoring centers, shouldn't Stamkos be regarded higher?

Matthews contract is, imo, really simple. He's very nearly without peer. He's a better pure goal scorer than any of the names you've listed above and, in his first three seasons, he outperformed everyone in the league not named Ovechkin -- and there, at 5v5, he's only behind by a hair. Ovi signed a 13-year contract under the last CBA at ~17% of the cap. Matthews's at ~14% is pretty much right.

Marner, on the other hand, has a lot of peers. They're all great players, but none of them have made 13% on the cap on a second contract, and, as much as people are saying it's a new market and RFAs are getting paid, until one of them actually does** -- it isn't. 

** the one who's in the same league as Marner: Eichel, Buffalo's franchise center. So, at this point, we can say that when a team is sufficiently talent-starved it'll pay the best player it's got over 13%.

 

[Zee]

Just a gentle reminder from Dreger!

https://twitter.com/darrendreger/status/1143151294712078336?s=21

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Just a gentle reminder from Dreger!

https://twitter.com/darrendreger/status/1143151294712078336?s=21

Dreger today: Marner will be visiting multiple teams
Dreger yesterday: Marner will be visiting multiple teams
Dreger 2 days ago: Marner will be visiting multiple teams
Dreger 3 days ago: Marner will be visiting multi

 

[Zee]

Just a gentle reminder from Dreger!

https://twitter.com/darrendreger/status/1143151294712078336?s=21

Dreger today: Marner will be visiting multiple teams
Dreger yesterday: Marner will be visiting multiple teams
Dreger 2 days ago: Marner will be visiting multiple teams
Dreger 3 days ago: Marner will be visiting multi

There's a #BlockDreger movement from Leafs fans getting going on Twitter.  ;D

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/FAN590/status/1143172519903617027

Burke doesn't usually play the role of "insider" so I don't know how much stock to put in this, but he says he heard Marner turned down 8 years/$80mil.

 

[Zee]

https://twitter.com/FAN590/status/1143172519903617027

Burke doesn't usually play the role of "insider" so I don't know how much stock to put in this, but he says he heard Marner turned down 8 years/$80mil.

He probably wants 5 years same as Matthews.

 

[herman]

The initial tweet is about Duchene, but the rest of the thread has a lot of Marner speculation from Friedman and CJ.

https://twitter.com/account4hockey/status/1143187967521017856
This is the fun one. These two also know Dubas better than Marner does due to their time with him on the Marlies.

 

[cabber24]

The initial tweet is about Duchene, but the rest of the thread has a lot of Marner speculation from Friedman and CJ.

https://twitter.com/account4hockey/status/1143187967521017856
This is the fun one. These two also know Dubas better than Marner does due to their time with him on the Marlies.

The opportunity to play with the caliber of linemates in Toronto will get them paid if they take bridge deals.

 

[bustaheims]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Marner will find that other teams aren't offering a significantly better deal than the Leafs. A lot of teams will be put off by the idea of giving up four 1st round picks as compensation, which would serve to put a cap on their offers. Combined with the cap not rising as high as was expected, I suspect it won't be long before the Marner camp learns that the huge offer they're hoping for isn't out there.

 

[Bender]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Marner will find that other teams aren't offering a significantly better deal than the Leafs. A lot of teams will be put off by the idea of giving up four 1st round picks as compensation, which would serve to put a cap on their offers. Combined with the cap not rising as high as was expected, I suspect it won't be long before the Marner camp learns that the huge offer they're hoping for isn't out there.

But it's still a huge offer! That's what I don't understand. It's not like he's getting squeezed here!

 

[Kin]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Marner will find that other teams aren't offering a significantly better deal than the Leafs. A lot of teams will be put off by the idea of giving up four 1st round picks as compensation, which would serve to put a cap on their offers. Combined with the cap not rising as high as was expected, I suspect it won't be long before the Marner camp learns that the huge offer they're hoping for isn't out there.

If the issue now is term rather than cap dollars though someone might be willing to make the 5 year offer he wants. A five year deal at just under the 4 1st round threshold might be exactly the term and money he wants and would be fairly attractive to teams if all they'd lose is two firsts, a second and a third.

 

[Kin]

But it's still a huge offer! That's what I don't understand. It's not like he's getting squeezed here!

I think the issue now, and what it was with Matthews, was how do you value the UFA years you're buying. Because, like it or not, the Leafs did just sort of play a big role in establishing just how valuable those UFA years can be for elite players. Tavares, a top 15 or 20 player in the league, got offered 13 million dollars a year as a UFA or the most money in the league. If you're Matthews or Marner, why wouldn't you look to that and try to value your UFA years appropriately?

A lot of people have balked at the idea of Marner at 11 million per but if you include 3 or 4 UFA years it becomes more reasonable. Right? Because if you value UFA years at 13 per then the break down is more like

Years: 1-4, four years at 9 m per
Years: 5-8, four years at 13 million per

So still an 8 year, 11 million dollar deal but at a RFA rate that seems fairly reasonable and then a UFA rate that, while it may seem high, seems hard to argue with in light about what we know about the UFA market.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If the issue now is term rather than cap dollars though someone might be willing to make the 5 year offer he wants. A five year deal at just under the 4 1st round threshold might be exactly the term and money he wants and would be fairly attractive to teams if all they'd lose is two firsts, a second and a third.

That's an instant match though for the Leafs considering the low compensation, so we get back to the question of will a team make an offer sheet they know won't succeed. And historically that seems like a no.

 

[Kin]

If the issue now is term rather than cap dollars though someone might be willing to make the 5 year offer he wants. A five year deal at just under the 4 1st round threshold might be exactly the term and money he wants and would be fairly attractive to teams if all they'd lose is two firsts, a second and a third.

That's an instant match though for the Leafs considering the low compensation, so we get back to the question of will a team make an offer sheet they know won't succeed. And historically that seems like a no.

Yup and I'm still 75/25 or 80/20 that you're right. There's a small nagging part of me though that says something's slightly different these days and especially with regards to the Leafs.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/account4hockey/status/1143183791063752706