Mitch Marner: what now?

[Kin]

Whether you vote for something because you think it's the greatest thing in human history or because you're afraid of never being able to work again doesn't change what your vote ultimately means.

Read that back to yourself and think about where your sports fandom has gotten you in life.

 

[Zee]

Whether you vote for something because you think it's the greatest thing in human history or because you're afraid of never being able to work again doesn't change what your vote ultimately means.

Read that back to yourself and think about where your sports fandom has gotten you in life.

I mean, the NHL isn't the only hockey league in the world is it?  I misspoke when I said the players were afraid of never being able to work again, many did go over to Europe and were paid to play. 

 

[Kin]

I mean, the NHL isn't the only hockey league in the world is it?  I misspoke when I said the players were afraid of never being able to work again, many did go over to Europe and were paid to play.

Yup. Living in countries where they don't speak the language and with very real safety concerns, being forced to decide between being away from their families or emigrating...real sense of perspective you've got yourself going with there.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

I remember when the idea of the salary cap first surfaced, a number of teams including the Rangers, Flyers, Bruins and Tanenbaum from the Leafs were against it.  After the first flurry of dissent amongst those teams, it quickly quieted down and never really heard much about the cap from an individual team standpoint.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Poor guy has only earned about $2.7 mil (from capfriendly) in his first 3 years. That's more than a lot of people make in their whole working life.

No matter what contract he signs, he's going to have more money than he'll know what to do with (unless he's incredibly stupid).

He's actually earned more than that.  He hit multiple Schedule A bonuses in every single year.  At least 3/4 each year, and more likely 4/4 in most of his years. 

https://puckpedia.com/salary-cap/entry-level-performance-bonuses

The sticking point was that he only got Schedule A bonuses and not the Schedule B bonuses  (which Matthews did have in his contract)

So Marner earned like 2.7m in salary + signing bonuses, plus an additional 2.4-2.55m in performance bonuses (schedule a).  He would have earned an additional 2m this past year if he had Schedule B Bonuses in his contract (top 10 in assists)

Matthews earned the same in salary, signing bonuses, and schedule A bonuses (give or take 212.5k) PLUS Schedule B bonus (2m)  in his Rookie year (2nd in goals).  If he hadn't had injuries the last two years, he could have hit them again.

 

[Zee]

I mean, the NHL isn't the only hockey league in the world is it?  I misspoke when I said the players were afraid of never being able to work again, many did go over to Europe and were paid to play.

Yup. Living in countries where they don't speak the language and with very real safety concerns, being forced to decide between being away from their families or emigrating...real sense of perspective you've got yourself going with there.

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?  Had the NHLPA not gone along with the salary cap who knows what could have happened, maybe the NHL ceased to exist and all future players are in Sweden, Finland, wherever.  Maybe European hockey becomes more popular and they increase teams over there, who the heck knows.  Would be funny if Marner was in a contract stalemate with Frolunda HC right now instead of the Leafs, but I digress.  All I know is, both sides agreed to the current system, many rich players still continue to make a living and life goes on.  We'll get passed this too.

 

[Chris]

I really have never understood the "that's more money than I make so therefore he should be grateful and just accept less" argument. 

He's not working in your industry. He's not competing for a job against a Starbucks barista or most lawyers or doctors etc. 

If you went to your job tomorrow and everyone else was making 5 million and you were making 1, you would be pissed off.

If I went to my job tomorrow and found out I was now making a million dollars a year, I wouldn't ask any questions. But that's not what we're talking about here. It's not like Matthews is making 11.5 and Marner will be getting 2.3 (the equivalent of your above ratio). By any measure, Marner is going to be paid near the top of his profession regardless of what offer he signs.

My point was simply that I'm not going to get worked up about a player getting "cheated" out of his perceived worth when (1) that player has already at age 22 made more money than most will make in their life (for playing a game), and (2) that player is going to be paid near the top of his profession on his next contract.

We really don't know anything about the nature of the negotiations so I'll reserve judgement until a contract is signed.

 

[Kin]

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?

No. I'm saying that for the league not to re-open, and again it was Owners who made the decision to shut down the league during negotiations in order to exert pressure on players, meant real and serious consequences for human beings, their lives and their families lives in a way that "Gary Bettman might be upset with us despite the fact that technically he's our employee" wouldn't and that it's ridiculous, and a sign of just how much perspective you've lost, that you would try to equate those two things.

Despite the fact that you keep wanting to present it as such, nobody has presented what the Leafs may have offered Mitch Marner as an insult or anything of the sort. All that's been said is that Marner, as per the terms of the CBA, is under no obligation to sign a deal or accept the notion that he isn't entitled to a fair slice of the revenue he generates for his team and that may be informing his decision to OMG remain unsigned in the 4th week of July.

 

[Zee]

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?

No. I'm saying that for the league not to re-open, and again it was Owners who made the decision to shut down the league during negotiations in order to exert pressure on players, meant real and serious consequences for human beings, their lives and their families lives in a way that "Gary Bettman might be upset with us despite the fact that technically he's our employee" wouldn't and that it's ridiculous, and a sign of just how much perspective you've lost, that you would try to equate those two things.

Despite the fact that you keep wanting to present it as such, nobody has presented what the Leafs may have offered Mitch Marner as an insult or anything of the sort. All that's been said is that Marner, as per the terms of the CBA, is under no obligation to sign a deal or accept the notion that he isn't entitled to a fair slice of the revenue he generates for his team and that may be informing his decision to OMG remain unsigned in the 4th week of July.

I understand all that, and I've been on record saying that I think what the Leafs can and would be willing to pay Marner would be what I believe to be a fair slice of the pie in relation to his peers.  He will most likely be the 3rd highest paid player on the team behind Matthews and Tavares.  Where that fits into his revenue generation I have no idea, but I do know that Matthews jersey far outsells Marner as Auston had either the #1 or #2 selling jersey league wide the last 2 seasons.  I agree that Marner has every right to try and get as much money as he can, but I also realize that money is limited and by all accounts the Leafs are willing to pay him quite a nice amount of money.

 

[Kin]

I understand all that, and I've been on record saying that I think what the Leafs can and would be willing to pay Marner would be what I believe to be a fair slice of the pie in relation to his peers.

Which is where we get back to "fair" not being a meaningful designation in a system that is inherently unfair and, more importantly, us not knowing what Marner is angling for right now. It may have nothing to do with his yearly salary.

 

[Guilt Trip]

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?

No. I'm saying that for the league not to re-open, and again it was Owners who made the decision to shut down the league during negotiations in order to exert pressure on players, meant real and serious consequences for human beings, their lives and their families lives in a way that "Gary Bettman might be upset with us despite the fact that technically he's our employee" wouldn't and that it's ridiculous, and a sign of just how much perspective you've lost, that you would try to equate those two things.

Despite the fact that you keep wanting to present it as such, nobody has presented what the Leafs may have offered Mitch Marner as an insult or anything of the sort. All that's been said is that Marner, as per the terms of the CBA, is under no obligation to sign a deal or accept the notion that he isn't entitled to a fair slice of the revenue he generates for his team and that may be informing his decision to OMG remain unsigned in the 4th week of July.

I understand all that, and I've been on record saying that I think what the Leafs can and would be willing to pay Marner would be what I believe to be a fair slice of the pie in relation to his peers.  He will most likely be the 3rd highest paid player on the team behind Matthews and Tavares.  Where that fits into his revenue generation I have no idea, but I do know that Matthews jersey far outsells Marner as Auston had either the #1 or #2 selling jersey league wide the last 2 seasons.  I agree that Marner has every right to try and get as much money as he can, but I also realize that money is limited and by all accounts the Leafs are willing to pay him quite a nice amount of money.

Yeah, so sign the f'n contract and stop being a selfish, spoiled little pr#$k lol. ;D

 

[Highlander]

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?

No. I'm saying that for the league not to re-open, and again it was Owners who made the decision to shut down the league during negotiations in order to exert pressure on players, meant real and serious consequences for human beings, their lives and their families lives in a way that "Gary Bettman might be upset with us despite the fact that technically he's our employee" wouldn't and that it's ridiculous, and a sign of just how much perspective you've lost, that you would try to equate those two things.

Despite the fact that you keep wanting to present it as such, nobody has presented what the Leafs may have offered Mitch Marner as an insult or anything of the sort. All that's been said is that Marner, as per the terms of the CBA, is under no obligation to sign a deal or accept the notion that he isn't entitled to a fair slice of the revenue he generates for his team and that may be informing his decision to OMG remain unsigned in the 4th week of July.

I understand all that, and I've been on record saying that I think what the Leafs can and would be willing to pay Marner would be what I believe to be a fair slice of the pie in relation to his peers.  He will most likely be the 3rd highest paid player on the team behind Matthews and Tavares.  Where that fits into his revenue generation I have no idea, but I do know that Matthews jersey far outsells Marner as Auston had either the #1 or #2 selling jersey league wide the last 2 seasons.  I agree that Marner has every right to try and get as much money as he can, but I also realize that money is limited and by all accounts the Leafs are willing to pay him quite a nice amount of money.

Yeah, so sign the f'n contract and stop being a selfish, spoiled little pr#$k lol. ;D

I second this motion, now lets stop this thread before my eyes burn out of my heed.

 

[Guilt Trip]

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?

No. I'm saying that for the league not to re-open, and again it was Owners who made the decision to shut down the league during negotiations in order to exert pressure on players, meant real and serious consequences for human beings, their lives and their families lives in a way that "Gary Bettman might be upset with us despite the fact that technically he's our employee" wouldn't and that it's ridiculous, and a sign of just how much perspective you've lost, that you would try to equate those two things.

Despite the fact that you keep wanting to present it as such, nobody has presented what the Leafs may have offered Mitch Marner as an insult or anything of the sort. All that's been said is that Marner, as per the terms of the CBA, is under no obligation to sign a deal or accept the notion that he isn't entitled to a fair slice of the revenue he generates for his team and that may be informing his decision to OMG remain unsigned in the 4th week of July.

I understand all that, and I've been on record saying that I think what the Leafs can and would be willing to pay Marner would be what I believe to be a fair slice of the pie in relation to his peers.  He will most likely be the 3rd highest paid player on the team behind Matthews and Tavares.  Where that fits into his revenue generation I have no idea, but I do know that Matthews jersey far outsells Marner as Auston had either the #1 or #2 selling jersey league wide the last 2 seasons.  I agree that Marner has every right to try and get as much money as he can, but I also realize that money is limited and by all accounts the Leafs are willing to pay him quite a nice amount of money.

Yeah, so sign the f'n contract and stop being a selfish, spoiled little pr#$k lol. ;D

I second this motion, now lets stop this thread before my eyes burn out of my heed.

Second your motion. This thread has gotten way bigger then it needs to be.

 

[Zee]

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?

No. I'm saying that for the league not to re-open, and again it was Owners who made the decision to shut down the league during negotiations in order to exert pressure on players, meant real and serious consequences for human beings, their lives and their families lives in a way that "Gary Bettman might be upset with us despite the fact that technically he's our employee" wouldn't and that it's ridiculous, and a sign of just how much perspective you've lost, that you would try to equate those two things.

Despite the fact that you keep wanting to present it as such, nobody has presented what the Leafs may have offered Mitch Marner as an insult or anything of the sort. All that's been said is that Marner, as per the terms of the CBA, is under no obligation to sign a deal or accept the notion that he isn't entitled to a fair slice of the revenue he generates for his team and that may be informing his decision to OMG remain unsigned in the 4th week of July.

I understand all that, and I've been on record saying that I think what the Leafs can and would be willing to pay Marner would be what I believe to be a fair slice of the pie in relation to his peers.  He will most likely be the 3rd highest paid player on the team behind Matthews and Tavares.  Where that fits into his revenue generation I have no idea, but I do know that Matthews jersey far outsells Marner as Auston had either the #1 or #2 selling jersey league wide the last 2 seasons.  I agree that Marner has every right to try and get as much money as he can, but I also realize that money is limited and by all accounts the Leafs are willing to pay him quite a nice amount of money.

Yeah, so sign the f'n contract and stop being a selfish, spoiled little pr#$k lol. ;D

I second this motion, now lets stop this thread before my eyes burn out of my heed.

Second your motion. This thread has gotten way bigger then it needs to be.

Kind of like Paul Marner's ego heeyyyooooooo

 

[Guilt Trip]

So you're saying it was mutually beneficial for the league and players to agree?

No. I'm saying that for the league not to re-open, and again it was Owners who made the decision to shut down the league during negotiations in order to exert pressure on players, meant real and serious consequences for human beings, their lives and their families lives in a way that "Gary Bettman might be upset with us despite the fact that technically he's our employee" wouldn't and that it's ridiculous, and a sign of just how much perspective you've lost, that you would try to equate those two things.

Despite the fact that you keep wanting to present it as such, nobody has presented what the Leafs may have offered Mitch Marner as an insult or anything of the sort. All that's been said is that Marner, as per the terms of the CBA, is under no obligation to sign a deal or accept the notion that he isn't entitled to a fair slice of the revenue he generates for his team and that may be informing his decision to OMG remain unsigned in the 4th week of July.

I understand all that, and I've been on record saying that I think what the Leafs can and would be willing to pay Marner would be what I believe to be a fair slice of the pie in relation to his peers.  He will most likely be the 3rd highest paid player on the team behind Matthews and Tavares.  Where that fits into his revenue generation I have no idea, but I do know that Matthews jersey far outsells Marner as Auston had either the #1 or #2 selling jersey league wide the last 2 seasons.  I agree that Marner has every right to try and get as much money as he can, but I also realize that money is limited and by all accounts the Leafs are willing to pay him quite a nice amount of money.

Yeah, so sign the f'n contract and stop being a selfish, spoiled little pr#$k lol. ;D

I second this motion, now lets stop this thread before my eyes burn out of my heed.

Second your motion. This thread has gotten way bigger then it needs to be.

Kind of like Paul Marner's ego heeyyyooooooo

Hahaha Touche!

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I think that we can all agree that there's at least one sports writer or editor who's pulling for a 7-year deal so that they can title a piece "The Seven Year Mitch".

 

[Phileas Fogg]

For general interest, here's a list of more presumably selfish, spoiled brats with bad fathers:

Provorov, Bennett, Carlo, Werenski, Laine, Connor, McAvoy, Boeser, Tkachuk, Rantanen, Point, etc, etc.

 

[Strangelove]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

 

[Kin]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

I'm not so sure that's true. I think a lot of these deals are actually pretty in-line historically with what we've seen from top tier younger players on their second deals.

The Matthews deal, for instance, is a five year deal worth 14.63% of the cap. Evgeni Malkin got a five year deal for his second contract worth 15.34% of the cap. Dion Phaneuf got a six year deal as his second contract worth the modern equivalent of 10.5 million AAV a year. If Marner wants a five year deal worth 11 million per year, it still wouldn't be as high a % of the cap that Rick Nash got on his five year second contract. McDavid's second deal was less % wise than Crosby's and McDavid signed away three UFA years.

I could go on. I'm not sure I see a big shift.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

I'm not so sure that's true. I think a lot of these deals are actually pretty in-line historically with what we've seen from top tier younger players on their second deals.

The Matthews deal, for instance, is a five year deal worth 14.63% of the cap. Evgeni Malkin got a five year deal for his second contract worth 15.34% of the cap. Dion Phaneuf got a six year deal as his second contract worth the modern equivalent of 10.5 million AAV a year. If Marner wants a five year deal worth 11 million per year, it still wouldn't be as high a % of the cap that Rick Nash got on his five year second contract. McDavid's second deal was less % wise than Crosby's and McDavid signed away three UFA years.

I could go on. I'm not sure I see a big shift.

I don't think there's a big shift either. I just think that Leaf fans are suddenly aware of what signing a top notch RFA feels like. Leaf fans had not been in this position before Nylander.