Mitch Marner: what now?

[herman]

https://twitter.com/theflintor/status/1123706285717897217

Full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocm8uJs2s3U

 

[mr grieves]

It's not really a firm deadline if it's "If you don't sign by a particular date, we start considering our options". The Leafs should always be considering their options and an artificial deadline only hurts the Leafs' ability to come to a mutually beneficially agreement here.

For all the comparing the situation to Nylander, the Nylander deal ended up being fine.

You def don't want to give Marner an ultimatum. As for the Nylander deal. Money wise yes but the timing really didn't end up being fine. He missed 2 months and never got his game  together. Total waste of a year. Leafs didn't appear to have a plan B in his situation. They absolutely need one with Marner. Willy should be fine next season.

If you "def don't want to give Marner an ultimatum," then how on earth do you avoid a Nylander situation? Just sign him to whatever his agent asks for and be done with it?

 

[Bullfrog]

Using ultimatum are not good negotiating tactics. Neither is saying: "$10M is the most we can afford, how about you take $9.5M?"

 

[herman]

A lot of fans seem to see contract negotiation as a zero sum game. There is already ample evidence that Dubas and Pridham approach these with the goal being mutual benefit.

 

[mr grieves]

Using ultimatum are not good negotiating tactics. Neither is saying: "$10M is the most we can afford, how about you take $9.5M?"

"We can afford $9M and not a Loonie more. We'd be willing to do a deal of 8, 7, 6, 5, or 3 years. If you won't sign a contract of one of those terms for that cap hit before the draft, we will have to look elsewhere. Our fans want to see some post-season success, and we can't miss out on UFA options."

A lot of fans seem to see contract negotiation as a zero sum game. There is already ample evidence that Dubas and Pridham approach these with the goal being mutual benefit.

"$72M buys you a lot of security and gives us 8 years of a great player. But that not be the way you see your own interests. $27M pays you very well and lets you renegotiate your deal when the league's salary structure has changed, while also giving us your highly valued services for 3 runs at the Cup. Choose which of these options that are in our interest is most in your own interest."

 

[Guilt Trip]

It's not really a firm deadline if it's "If you don't sign by a particular date, we start considering our options". The Leafs should always be considering their options and an artificial deadline only hurts the Leafs' ability to come to a mutually beneficially agreement here.

For all the comparing the situation to Nylander, the Nylander deal ended up being fine.

You def don't want to give Marner an ultimatum. As for the Nylander deal. Money wise yes but the timing really didn't end up being fine. He missed 2 months and never got his game  together. Total waste of a year. Leafs didn't appear to have a plan B in his situation. They absolutely need one with Marner. Willy should be fine next season.

If you "def don't want to give Marner an ultimatum," then how on earth do you avoid a Nylander situation? Just sign him to whatever his agent asks for and be done with it?

Ultimatum in my eyes is coming across as being cold. Take it or f-off kind of thing. I probably used the wrong word. You def have to have a deadline and you let them know it, but you also have to keep it friendly, right? You don't want a pissing contest.

 

[Bullfrog]

So you're suggesting the Leafs offer $9M/year and then Mitch gets to pick how many years? That's bizarre. Why would the AAV of a 3-year contract be the same as an 8-year contract? One is buying UFA years; the other is not.

Your first example is an ultimatum.

Your second example doesn't consider Marner's interests fairly. It says the club's interests are 1st, then his are second. Deals should be fair; ideally, they're equally beneficial. In each example, you're dictating terms, and this will not go over well.

This is not even addressing the fact that saying they can afford $9M and not a loonie more is a lie.

 

[princedpw]

With the difference the Leafs can not afford the year 1 penalty on the Cap for a late sign, plus how to deal with our RFAs and UFAs without knowing the Marner's Cap hit ?

Given that the range between Marner's initial ask and the sort of super-dream Team-friendly deal is probably no more than 2.5 million, that's not a number that should paralyze the Leafs' ability to make decisions on other guys.

They will certainly be able to make some decisions, but 2.5 million one way or the other is likely to have a significant effect. Depending on the Marleau factor, it may mean the difference between Kapanen and/or Johnsson fitting on the team, for instance, which will probably mean thinking about trades and UFAs to fill in for them.

 

[princedpw]

A lot of fans seem to see contract negotiation as a zero sum game. There is already ample evidence that Dubas and Pridham approach these with the goal being mutual benefit.

That?s nice spin but it is zero sum: more money for X means less for Y.

 

[mr grieves]

So you're suggesting the Leafs offer $9M/year and then Mitch gets to pick how many years? That's bizarre. Why would the AAV of a 3-year contract be the same as an 8-year contract? One is buying UFA years; the other is not.

Your first example is an ultimatum.

Your second example doesn't consider Marner's interests fairly. It says the club's interests are 1st, then his are second. Deals should be fair; ideally, they're equally beneficial. In each example, you're dictating terms, and this will not go over well.

This is not even addressing the fact that saying they can afford $9M and not a loonie more is a lie.

Unless you have a way to disappear Marleau's contract, the Leafs can't afford to pay Marner more than $9M and get any sort of replacement for Gardiner. From their perspective, $9M is the richest AAV that can be devoted to Marner in 2019-20.

Whether that's the first year of a long-term deal (buying UFA years), the first year of a Matthews-esque middle-termer (buying few to no UFA years), or a bridge (leading into another, bigger RFA deal) doesn't really make much difference to the Leafs given their overwhelming top priority here (have as good or better a team as last year). That's where Marner's side gets to determine what's beneficial to them. Once the AAV goes over $9M in 2019-20, the Leafs aren't as deep, get thinner on defense, etc. and the deal isn't mutually beneficial. 

I think of it in this way, there a several terms: (1) annual cap hit, (2) total payout, (3) length of deal, (4) structure of payout. In the above, the Leafs are dictating one of the terms -- Marner's side the others.

If your position is that, in dictating any of the terms, the Leafs are dictating all of the terms, then you're not describing a negotiation where mutual benefit is an outcome that's on the table. 

 

[disco]

Dreger reports: $10.16 x 5 years.

 

[Bullfrog]

...
If your position is that, in dictating any of the terms, the Leafs are dictating all of the terms, then you're not describing a negotiation where mutual benefit is an outcome that's on the table.

I'm definitely not saying that. There will definitely be negotiating tactics used. After all, the Leafs will want what's best for them and Marner will want what's best for him. What I'm saying is that neither should be dictating anything; that's not good faith negotiating.

You're including a false premise in your argument: that the Leafs no.1 priority is to have as good or better a team as last year. And then you're making assumptions based on that, such as Marner signing at $10M will prevent them from satisfying this assumed priority. I could then infer an assumption that the alternative (say, 1st round draft picks and a top free agent [Panarin?]) achieves that priority. But if it does, then an assumption that the draft picks (futures) is acceptable completely falsifies the original premise. Because if they'd accept futures + a lesser player (because banking on Panarin is a pretty risky gamble), then why wouldn't they just pay Marner his money and accept the slight dip in other talent for a year?

The cap crunch is primarily just for the upcoming year. Then Marleau is off the books.

 

[Deebo]

Dreger reports: $10.16 x 5 years.

What is his report? that it is done? or just speculating?

 

[mr grieves]

You're including a false premise in your argument: that the Leafs no.1 priority is to have as good or better a team as last year.

There's no way the Leafs' top priority heading into next season isn't to get beyond the first round.

And then you're making assumptions based on that, such as Marner signing at $10M will prevent them from satisfying this assumed priority.

I should've clarified: I'm sure the number isn't exactly $9M. But I'm sure there's a number and that Dubas & c. know what it is. And I think there's a very good chance it's a lot less (relative to the cap space they have available to play with) than what Marner's side wants it to be.

It's not "bad faith" in negotiating to say what your budget is!

I could then infer an assumption that the alternative (say, 1st round draft picks and a top free agent [Panarin?]) achieves that priority. But if it does, then an assumption that the draft picks (futures) is acceptable completely falsifies the original premise. Because if they'd accept futures + a lesser player (because banking on Panarin is a pretty risky gamble), then why wouldn't they just pay Marner his money and accept the slight dip in other talent for a year?

The idea would be Panarin (or Duchene or Skinner or whoever would run about what they're comfortable paying Marner) + whatever it is Marner's additional ask is (a decent top-four defenseman) would exceed the value of Marner alone. Yes, the compensation for Marner (top prospect, multiple first rounders, whatever) wouldn't pay immediate dividends, but their presence doesn't negate the possibility that the front office might rate Panarin + Stralman more valuable than Marner (let alone those 2 plus whatever the assets recouped in trading Marner might be swapped for).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Dreger reports: $10.16 x 5 years.

What is his report? that it is done? or just speculating?

I can't find any evidence Dreger said something like that, even just speculating. He's still on the $11mil talk.

 

[Frank E]

A lot of fans seem to see contract negotiation as a zero sum game. There is already ample evidence that Dubas and Pridham approach these with the goal being mutual benefit.

I love you, man.  But that's just a bunch of fluff.  MLSE employs players to play hockey, and they negotiate a contract based on MLSE's benefit.  Contract ask is too much?  Then no deal, no employment.

Marner is the asset, and they're leasing an asset with a hopeful return > the alternative player ROI.  There is no mutual benefit, other than Marner being employed and getting a paycheque, albeit a very large one.  MLSE has to consider the cap, their budget, and probable asset performance/risk factors.  Marner just has to go play hockey, and doing that good or not so good, he still gets paid.  That's the interesting thing about player contract negotiations is that there isn't really much risk for the players to consider:  They play, they get paid. 

They're not negotiating a partnership here, where which you could establish that there would be mutual benefit for mutual risk in doing so.  This would be more like if Marner was paid on a "per point" basis.

 

[Zee]

Dreger reports: $10.16 x 5 years.

What is his report? that it is done? or just speculating?

I can't find any evidence Dreger said something like that, even just speculating. He's still on the $11mil talk.

Fake twitter Dregers perhaps? Just like the Matthews contract we'll know Marner is done when LeafsPR tweets it.

 

[Kin]

I love you, man.  But that's just a bunch of fluff.  MLSE employs players to play hockey, and they negotiate a contract based on MLSE's benefit.  Contract ask is too much?  Then no deal, no employment.

I think that what is meant there is that Dubas sees that it's not always in a team's best interest to necessarily get the player signed for the lowest possible price and that some negotiations can create rifts between players and teams that linger beyond when a deal is signed. I'd rather Marner sign a 9.5 million aav deal that he was happy with than a 9 million dollar deal he felt undervalued and disrespected by.

 

[mr grieves]

I love you, man.  But that's just a bunch of fluff.  MLSE employs players to play hockey, and they negotiate a contract based on MLSE's benefit.  Contract ask is too much?  Then no deal, no employment.

I think that what is meant there is that Dubas sees that it's not always in a team's best interest to necessarily get the player signed for the lowest possible price and that some negotiations can create rifts between players and teams that linger beyond when a deal is signed. I'd rather Marner sign a 9.5 million aav deal that he was happy with than a 9 million dollar deal he felt undervalued and disrespected by.

I don't think anyone advocating exploring trades or drawing lines is imagining a 500k difference between 2 numbers we know, in all likelihood, the Leafs could manage.

Everyone would like to sign Marner for the least amount of money he'd feel is appropriately respectful, but it's possible that that amount (agent's leaking north of $11M) would ruin the team's salary structure ($1.5-2m is a big gap this year). If that's the case, they simply can't afford to sign him without disrespecting him -- so they would sort of have no option but to trade him. That does happen, even with really great RFA players.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

I'd be more inclined to keep The Big Four, and fill out the roster with who cares.  You can always find cheap players in the off season, how often do you find a Mitch Marner?  I'd let Johnsson and Kapanen sit for a year before trading Mitch Marner in a four quarters for a dollar deal.