Mitch Marner: what now?
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
- Status
herman
Well-known member
https://www.capfriendly.com/ltir-faq
It's gotten to the point over these past few years that I really don't care about the cap minutae. We have one of the guys who helped write the CBA rules who has demonstrated a knowledge of the workings that media and even other general managers in the league were unaware of.
The Leafs are in position to easily fend off any offersheet south of the 4 1st rd. picks, and have room to contemplate matching such an offer south of McDavid level if it came down to it (no one is offering that though).
It's gotten to the point over these past few years that I really don't care about the cap minutae. We have one of the guys who helped write the CBA rules who has demonstrated a knowledge of the workings that media and even other general managers in the league were unaware of.
The Leafs are in position to easily fend off any offersheet south of the 4 1st rd. picks, and have room to contemplate matching such an offer south of McDavid level if it came down to it (no one is offering that though).
Guilt Trip
Active member
I would think that's right but I really don't know the answer to that. I would think as soon as you use LTIR then what Miller said kicks in.princedpw said:
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
But I think the point is that Mackinnon/Pastrnak contracts may just not exist anymore except for in extremely odd cases. Like, Rantanen may be the best comp out there for Pastrnak both in terms of raw numbers and questions about how much of his scoring is him and how much is his situation and I don't think any of us expect Rantanen to sign a 6 year/7.25 AAV deal which is roughly the Pastrnak equivalent. Like I was saying in another thread, those contracts look so bad right now for the players that other agents are probably advising their guys to sign 5 year deals just to avoid those situations.
Like, honestly, the only way I see another contract like that being signed is in a case of someone like Hischier or Patrick or a top prospect that hasn't really wowed in the NHL. So I think the "upside" you're looking for in Matthews not signing a Mackinnon type of contract is that Matthews was unquestionably better than Mackinnon was in his first three years. You can say with hindsight that the Leafs may be better off if Matthews wasn't very good these last few years so he'd sign on the cheap and then get good but I don't think any of us would actually be happier with the Leafs in that situation.
I've always had sort of a ranked system of how legit a rumour might be based off the format it was released in. I'll use Elliotte Friedman and the way he talks about rumours at times to show what I mean. It goes a little something like this, with the top of the list meaning the rumour has more validity and the bottom being something someone says just because they have to say something:
1) Announces it on HNIC's 2nd period intermission show, or writes an article and posts it on Sportsnet.ca. In this case, he's announcing it to the very largest audience possible so he's really putting his reputation on the line. Usually when he says it here it's pretty legit and something's probably close to happening. The intermission show or any article he posts online also gets sponsored so it makes Sportsnet money. This is literally Friedman doing his job.
2) Announces it on his twitter account. Twitter's a big deal and Friedman has a ton of followers so if he posts something there it's going to get viewed by a lot of people. But... his job's a reporter/insider so if he's not using the information to drive viewers/eyeballs to Sportsnet either on TV or online then it's probably a 2nd-tier rumour.
3) Announces it on radio. Radio can be tedious for guys like Friedman. You have to go on and talk to a lot of different people at different times and sometimes there's only so much you can say. And it's always to a local audience so not that many people are listening. So when an interviewer asks a question like "tell me what you're hearing" and Friedman says something like "well I hear the Leafs might be doing something with their defence" he's probably really only filling airwaves. If Friedman says something on the radio but doesn't tweet about it even though it's take like 30 seconds to do, well there's probably a good reason for that.
4) Announces it on a podcast. Podcasts are pretty similar to radio but you gotta drag out conversations for like 10x as long so at this point if Friedman says something on a podcast that he doesn't say on one of his regular radio appearances and that he doesn't tweet about and that he wouldn't ask Sportsnet to put their name beside... well you can be pretty sure he's mostly just making educated guesses.
Anyway my point is I genuinely don't know where I would put "insider has a huge scoop but doesn't tell his employer, his twitter audience, announce it on the radio or on a podcast, but instead just mentions it to a friend who then tweets about it" but it would be very, very low on the list.
1) Announces it on HNIC's 2nd period intermission show, or writes an article and posts it on Sportsnet.ca. In this case, he's announcing it to the very largest audience possible so he's really putting his reputation on the line. Usually when he says it here it's pretty legit and something's probably close to happening. The intermission show or any article he posts online also gets sponsored so it makes Sportsnet money. This is literally Friedman doing his job.
2) Announces it on his twitter account. Twitter's a big deal and Friedman has a ton of followers so if he posts something there it's going to get viewed by a lot of people. But... his job's a reporter/insider so if he's not using the information to drive viewers/eyeballs to Sportsnet either on TV or online then it's probably a 2nd-tier rumour.
3) Announces it on radio. Radio can be tedious for guys like Friedman. You have to go on and talk to a lot of different people at different times and sometimes there's only so much you can say. And it's always to a local audience so not that many people are listening. So when an interviewer asks a question like "tell me what you're hearing" and Friedman says something like "well I hear the Leafs might be doing something with their defence" he's probably really only filling airwaves. If Friedman says something on the radio but doesn't tweet about it even though it's take like 30 seconds to do, well there's probably a good reason for that.
4) Announces it on a podcast. Podcasts are pretty similar to radio but you gotta drag out conversations for like 10x as long so at this point if Friedman says something on a podcast that he doesn't say on one of his regular radio appearances and that he doesn't tweet about and that he wouldn't ask Sportsnet to put their name beside... well you can be pretty sure he's mostly just making educated guesses.
Anyway my point is I genuinely don't know where I would put "insider has a huge scoop but doesn't tell his employer, his twitter audience, announce it on the radio or on a podcast, but instead just mentions it to a friend who then tweets about it" but it would be very, very low on the list.
Guilt Trip
Active member
Paul Marner wants to be Asst GM and has a say in all player decisions...lolZee said:
herman said:
No, no, but there have been a few times this offseason where I wanted share that theory. I'm glad I waited until now.
herman said:
Dhaliwal's actually usually pretty reliable with rumours, at least when it comes to the Canucks. But again, if he trusted the information enough he would have tweeted it himself. So far, he hasn't.
Nik the Trik said:
Im glad Matthews, Marner and Nylander are great. It would be better for the leafs if they signed for less. Some guys over the past few years have (Stamkos, Kucherov, McDavid, others I mentioned). Nylander was pretty straight market value. Matthews, given the term, was essentially as high as possible. Marner we will see. Oh well. Nothing can be done about it.
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
But that's my point. Mackinnon and Pastrnak didn't "sign for less". They signed deals that matched up pretty well with what they'd actually done at the time. That they outstripped that production later doesn't change that and the only realistic way for any of the guys the Leafs have to have signed for less is for them to be less good than they are.
I'm not going to get into the Tampa thing but McDavid is another example of why some of those deals are no longer going to be seen as good for players. Leave alone the money McDavid might have left on the table, do you think he's happy that he's not going to have any say in where he plays for the next 7 years?
And I kind of reject the notion that Matthews didn't "sign for less" in the way that McDavid did. Do you really think that if Matthews had wanted 12 million instead of 11.634 that the Leafs would have balked? Or that they wouldn't have matched a 5 year/60 or 62.5 million offer sheet for him?
Nik the Trik said:
I dont care whether the deals are good for leaf players ? really, it?s the opposite. I hope they are ?terrible? for a given individual and help the leafs acquire more talent, increasing their chance to win (and of course that simultaneously the players are happy and want to stay and give great discounts on future deals).
On McDavid, yes, I think he gave more of a discount than Matthews. That?s still true if Matthews could have squeezed more.
In the Matthews extension thread, you suggested the following contracts:
Those deals would have given us a substantial savings ? 5 years at 9/year would make a huge difference. You werent trying to lowball the situation, I dont think. You were giving your best guess. Im just saying that it would have been nice if those deals had wound up happening. They didnt. The leafs paid much more.
bustaheims
Active member
herman said:
Yeah. I call BS.
- Status