Mitch Marner: what now?

[herman]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/marner-doesnt-case-argue-auston-matthews-money/

The battle lines have been drawn:
Team Marner TSN Bell Parrot: Darren Dreger
Team Dubas Sportsnet Rogers Analysis: Chris Johnston

 

[Kin]

I'm happy to say it for the umpteenth time. I genuinely can't believe that, during the lockouts, so many hockey fans were in favour of having this sort of player compensation system. Isn't this fun? To think about players and their contributions entirely in dollars and cents and value for services provided? Aren't these drawn out negotiations a blast? Isn't it just so engaging as a fan when a team making the kind of money the Leafs do are afraid of Mitch Marner getting to free agency early because they might not be able to re-sign him?

But hey, at least Carolina and Phoenix didn't go out of business. Enjoy that you bootlicking supplicants. 

 

[Bates]

If the Leaf's are going to do a bridge with Marner that leads to a $13 or $14 million qualifying offer they may as well just go for the Matthews type dollars right now long term. Correct the roster now and move forward.

 

[Frank E]

I think Bob's numbers are nuts.

 

[Zee]

I think Bob's numbers are nuts.

Those aren't "Bobs numbers"  He states "Many throw around $9M or 10M AAV" as in, that's what some pundits are throwing around as a possible 3 year bridge deal.

 

[mr grieves]

If the Leaf's are going to do a bridge with Marner that leads to a $13 or $14 million qualifying offer they may as well just go for the Matthews type dollars right now long term. Correct the roster now and move forward.

There are no more "corrections" they can make to the roster. It's pretty well optimized from a cap perspective. Are they going to trade Andersen or Rielly? The RFAs they've signed within the last year? Maybe a big-dollar vet on the wrong side of the aging curve? They've still got, uh, Tavares? We know Cody Ceci can't be moved without destroying Toronto's reputation throughout the league, so that's out.

Just "pay him Matthews money now so you don't have to exceed that in 4 years" isn't an option.

Hence the bridge.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Nothing particularly surprising here, but an update from Friedman's first 31 Thoughts of the season:

2. It is impossible to write or talk about Marner without offending someone, so here is my attempt at a bias-free take: It?s tense and personal. My belief is Toronto is willing to go to an $11-million AAV, but only if he signs for seven years. I?d heard both sides might agree to two years ? then let arbitration sort it out ? but a few sources threw cold water on that. I mentioned during a radio hit last week the rumour that Marner?s representatives pitched a three-year contract with a structure similar to the Meier/Werenski setup, with the third season as high as $15 million. However, I?m told that was several months ago and is no longer relevant, although both sides have continued to explore that kind of an option. I don?t sense things are anywhere close.

Turning down $11mil x 7 (the Tavares deal) would be insane for Marner. Come on.

 

[Bullfrog]

Turning down $11mil x 7 (the Tavares deal) would be insane for Marner. Come on.

Indeed.

 

[Bender]

Nothing particularly surprising here, but an update from Friedman's first 31 Thoughts of the season:

2. It is impossible to write or talk about Marner without offending someone, so here is my attempt at a bias-free take: It?s tense and personal. My belief is Toronto is willing to go to an $11-million AAV, but only if he signs for seven years. I?d heard both sides might agree to two years ? then let arbitration sort it out ? but a few sources threw cold water on that. I mentioned during a radio hit last week the rumour that Marner?s representatives pitched a three-year contract with a structure similar to the Meier/Werenski setup, with the third season as high as $15 million. However, I?m told that was several months ago and is no longer relevant, although both sides have continued to explore that kind of an option. I don?t sense things are anywhere close.

Turning down $11mil x 7 (the Tavares deal) would be insane for Marner. Come on.

Trade him. They aren't negotiating in good faith. Take a hike. Maybe that's the hard pill to swallow for everyone involved.

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George Costanza thinks he should make as much money as Ted Danson on Cheers and everyone keeps telling him: YOU AREN'T TED DANSON!

I think there's a team out there desperate for a star winger who're willing to give up pieces we need more pressingly than Marner.

 

[Kin]

Trade him. They aren't negotiating in good faith.

Thinking his value is higher than you do doesn't constitute negotiating in bad faith. Especially when he's probably more right about his value in an absolute sense.

 

[Bates]

If the Leaf's are going to do a bridge with Marner that leads to a $13 or $14 million qualifying offer they may as well just go for the Matthews type dollars right now long term. Correct the roster now and move forward.

There are no more "corrections" they can make to the roster. It's pretty well optimized from a cap perspective. Are they going to trade Andersen or Rielly? The RFAs they've signed within the last year? Maybe a big-dollar vet on the wrong side of the aging curve? They've still got, uh, Tavares? We know Cody Ceci can't be moved without destroying Toronto's reputation throughout the league, so that's out.

Just "pay him Matthews money now so you don't have to exceed that in 4 years" isn't an option.

Hence the bridge.

Sure there are corrections to make. Half of the Leaf's lineup will eventually be all entry level or under a million guys. We can make that happen now or be in even more if a mess when Marner gets his $14 million as opposed to $11.?? Better to suck it up now as we are kinda in a bind for D men and a goalie contract wise down the road. If the Cap increases substationally we will be ahead in short order.

 

[herman]

Boy, were we ever na?ve back then.

 

[Bender]

Trade him. They aren't negotiating in good faith.

Thinking his value is higher than you do doesn't constitute negotiating in bad faith. Especially when he's probably more right about his value in an absolute sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

Some examples of bad faith include: a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising;[4]

I think that clearly is the Marner camp right now. And maybe there's no objective way to determine this, but this is my viewpoint on the matter based on the info.

 

[Kin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

Some examples of bad faith include: a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising;[4]

I think you're misreading that. That's "no intent of compromising" as in not willing to agree to any deal and negotiating as a delaying tactic or for optics. It's not holding firm to a position after extensive negotiation.

The thing from Friedman you were responding to clearly indicates that Marner's reps are pitching proposals they'd agree to, ideas that are alternatives to the long term dilemma, but they just haven't found a structure that both sides agree to. If that's negotiating in bad-faith than anyone who is negotiating a position and holding firm is negotiating in bad-faith.

 

[Bullfrog]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

Some examples of bad faith include: a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising;[4]

I think that clearly is the Marner camp right now. And maybe there's no objective way to determine this, but this is my viewpoint on the matter based on the info.

How can you think anything "clearly" about Marner's negotiating position? We really don't know anything about what they're negotiating, other than looking at Ferris's historical tactics.

 

[princedpw]

Boy, were we ever na?ve back then.

Well, no deal has been signed so we'll have to see (and none of the other forwards have signed either).  Until that happens, it's all just speculation and unsubstantiated rumors.

In the meantime, I think it would be fun to throw out Marner trade proposals.  I can start with one you can shoot down:  Kotkaniemi and Petry for Marner.  Speculate away.

 

[Bates]

Boy, were we ever na?ve back then.

Well, no deal has been signed so we'll have to see (and none of the other forwards have signed either).  Until that happens, it's all just speculation and unsubstantiated rumors.

In the meantime, I think it would be fun to throw out Marner trade proposals.  I can start with one you can shoot down:  Kotkaniemi and Petry for Marner.  Speculate away.

How is your day going JFJ?

 

[Arn]

We just need to write him an open letter he?ll never read. That?ll sort all this out.

 

[Kin]

In the meantime, I think it would be fun to throw out Marner trade proposals.  I can start with one you can shoot down:  Kotkaniemi and Petry for Marner.  Speculate away.

A fun idea, just as a thought experiment, is Marner to NJD for Hall(assuming a reasonable extension can be worked out) and a good D prospect or something.

 

[Bates]

The trade that makes sense is Marner for McDavid. Marner is as good as Matthews and only McDavid is better than Matthews. Might be willing to throw in a 2nd rounder.