Point signs 3-year bridge deal

[mr grieves]

But it's not just deals like Eichel and Draisaitl or a bunch of other historical comparisons I could make(Kessel's 2nd deal was .016 cap % per point higher than Marner, RNH's was .048!). Point's deal has him paid, per point, less than Andreas Johnsson. It's just completely unprecedented.

It is also a three-year bridge and, at 8.3% of the cap, is probably the richest contract of that sort in the league. 

I think your C.H.% ? previous season's points formula overlooks the extent to which term plays into the contracts that are eventually signed. It's not crazy to me that you'd only get into that .125 to .175 range if you're looking at long-term deal and that bridges come in at lower percent-per-point values.

 

[Frank E]

That's a very nice deal for me to poop on.

I don't know how Tampa hasn't won a Cup yet lately...unlucky I guess.

This deal was inevitably going to be compared to Marner's, and it looks great in comparison, today.

We can check back in on how good it looks in 3 years from now when Point's to be re-signed. 

 

[Zee]

That's a very nice deal for me to poop on.

I don't know how Tampa hasn't won a Cup yet lately...unlucky I guess.

This deal was inevitably going to be compared to Marner's, and it looks great in comparison, today.

We can check back in on how good it looks in 3 years from now when Point's to be re-signed.

Point would have to sign for $15M/year for 3 following years to have the same amount of money that Marner is getting over 6

 

[Kin]

It is also a three-year bridge and, at 8.3% of the cap, is probably the richest contract of that sort in the league.

Except that feeds into what I'm saying. How many 80 or 90+ point players looking to sign their second deals signed three year bridges?

To the best of my off-hand knowledge there's just Eric Staal, who got 2% more of the cap than Point in the Cap's first real off-season.

 

[Kin]

Point would have to sign for $15M/year for 3 following years to have the same amount of money that Marner is getting over 6

Not in take-home.

 

[Bill_Berg]

That's a very nice deal for me to poop on.

I don't know how Tampa hasn't won a Cup yet lately...unlucky I guess.

This deal was inevitably going to be compared to Marner's, and it looks great in comparison, today.

We can check back in on how good it looks in 3 years from now when Point's to be re-signed.

Point would have to sign for $15M/year for 3 following years to have the same amount of money that Marner is getting over 6

Depending on how the TV deal works out in 2022, it could happen. It will at least be closer than people think by 2025. Marner is going to make more I would wager, but not that much more.

 

[mr grieves]

It is also a three-year bridge and, at 8.3% of the cap, is probably the richest contract of that sort in the league.

Except that feeds into what I'm saying. How many 80 or 90+ point players looking to sign their second deals signed three year bridges?

To the best of my off-hand knowledge there's just Eric Staal, who got 2% more of the cap than Point in the Cap's first real off-season.

Right. It's rare. Point's deal is a re-setting of the RFA market that I thought we might see with Marner -- bridges at a higher AAV/C.H.% than we've seen before, presumably setting the player up for another bump in a few years. We'll have to wait and see how it works out for Tampa in the long term.

For the time being, the richer bridge increases the near-term competitiveness of their roster. They can afford a valuable depth piece that the Leafs cannot.

 

[Bates]

Point would have to sign for $15M/year for 3 following years to have the same amount of money that Marner is getting over 6

Not in take-home.

Including endorcements?

 

[Kin]

For the time being, the richer bridge increases the near-term competitiveness of their roster. They can afford a valuable depth piece that the Leafs cannot.

Like I was saying earlier, all of Tampa's major contracts have been significantly lower than for comparable players around the league. So it's not this deal that gives them a meaningful competitive advantage over everyone else, it's the cumulative effect of all of them.

 

[Frank E]

For the time being, the richer bridge increases the near-term competitiveness of their roster. They can afford a valuable depth piece that the Leafs cannot.

Like I was saying earlier, all of Tampa's major contracts have been significantly lower than for comparable players around the league. So it's not this deal that gives them a meaningful competitive advantage over everyone else, it's the cumulative effect of all of them.

It's not just this deal, I think is what you mean.  Because this deal certainly contributes significantly to their not having to ice a Holl and a Gauthier, and a 21 player roster, etc...

 

[Kin]

It's not just this deal, I think is what you mean.  Because this deal certainly contributes significantly to their not having to ice a Holl and a Gauthier, and a 21 player roster, etc...

No, Frank, I'm pretty sure I meant what I said. This deal vs. a high price three year bridge deal is probably a couple million or so which I don't think is a particularly significant competitive advantage. Especially not one that can't be overcome by good development/scouting.

When you add them up and it gets to be 8-10 million? That's a real difference.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Less income tax and bridge deal or no this makes the Marner deal look like the Leafs got bent over bad.

How does this make the Eichel or Aho deals look?

This deal is the outlier right now. Not Marner. I mean, Point outscored Boeser by like 40 points and got a million more than he did.

This..All day long.

 

[bustaheims]

Less income tax and bridge deal or no this makes the Marner deal look like the Leafs got bent over bad.

And far less likely those "offer sheets" rumours likely were for much less than what Marner signed for.

Not to mention Marner's endorsement will make up for the tax difference, but that doesn't seem to count??

A) He'd get those endorsements regardless of how much his contract with the team was, so, no, they don't count.

B) Marner would have to earn close to ~$2M in endorsements per season to make up the tax difference between Ontario and Florida. Only 3 players in the league currently earn that much through endorsement deals - Crosby, Ovechkin, and McDavid.

 

[Coco-puffs]

It is also a three-year bridge and, at 8.3% of the cap, is probably the richest contract of that sort in the league.

Except that feeds into what I'm saying. How many 80 or 90+ point players looking to sign their second deals signed three year bridges?

To the best of my off-hand knowledge there's just Eric Staal, who got 2% more of the cap than Point in the Cap's first real off-season.

Right. It's rare. Point's deal is a re-setting of the RFA market that I thought we might see with Marner -- bridges at a higher AAV/C.H.% than we've seen before, presumably setting the player up for another bump in a few years. We'll have to wait and see how it works out for Tampa in the long term.

For the time being, the richer bridge increases the near-term competitiveness of their roster. They can afford a valuable depth piece that the Leafs cannot.

Have you seen their Capfriendly?

They, like the Leafs, have 8-9 players on their projected roster on ELC/sub $1M deals.

What's interesting is the allocation of dollars:  All of Tampa's mid-tier forwards are between 4.5M - 5.5M each.  All of Toronto's are between 2.25M and 3.5M.  I personally don't think there is a huge difference between Killorn, Palat, Tyler Johnson, Gourde and Mango, Kappy, Kerfoot, and Hyman.  Especially given the age difference (all of Tampa's are 27+)

The difference in forward salaries of the Top 8 F's on both teams:  The Leafs have four STAR forwards (50.5M for top 8 ) and Tampa has three STAR forwards (46.3M for top 8 ).  I'm fully on board with a shift to paying stars more.  While a reset hasn't happened yet- except for in TO- I do expect things will shift.

And next year, Tampa is in a real pickle.  74M commited to 14 roster spots, and they'll need to re-sign Sergachev in the approx. 10M in cap space they'll have to split among 8 players.

Its not all roses for the Leafs either, with only Rielly and Sandin (from current projected D-men to start this season) signed beyond this season on D.  But I do think its more manageable.

 

[ZBBM]

With Great Bucks comes Great Responsibility.

Like it or not, it's game on for Marner, because he will be compared to Point for the next 3 years whether it's fair or not.  By his own account, Mitch didn't like the greedy narrative that took hold at the end of the contract negotiations.  There will be plenty of journos (that scratching sound you hear is Cox sharpening his goosedown pen quills) who will be ready to take that simplistic storyline and grind Marner into the sidewalk with it if he doesn't outperform (and by that I mean outpoint) Point.

 

[Kin]

We've talked about endorsements a lot in the past here but there are some other reasons why, in this context, it's an atrociously bad argument for trying to equalize things between the hard, cold facts of tax rates:

1) Teams already see an economic benefit from players doing endorsements in the form of increased exposure of their star players in the market.

2) It's entirely conjecture. It's not just the total $ in endorsements that's the issue it's "How much would a player make in Market A vs. Market B" and there's no way to know that.

3) Our actual knowledge of how much players make via endorsements is basically nothing(Forbes' numbers, as they are with everything, are estimates) but the estimates we do have strongly indicate that it's a players' personal level of success that dictates endorsement income rather than market size.

 

[Bates]

Less income tax and bridge deal or no this makes the Marner deal look like the Leafs got bent over bad.

And far less likely those "offer sheets" rumours likely were for much less than what Marner signed for.

Not to mention Marner's endorsement will make up for the tax difference, but that doesn't seem to count??

A) He'd get those endorsements regardless of how much his contract with the team was, so, no, they don't count.

B) Marner would have to earn close to ~$2M in endorsements per season to make up the tax difference between Ontario and Florida. Only 3 players in the league currently earn that much through endorsement deals - Crosby, Ovechkin, and McDavid.

$2 million is exactly what was reported for Marner a few weeks back. If taxes count surely extra money should???

 

[Kin]

Like it or not, it's game on for Marner, because he will be compared to Point for the next 3 years whether it's fair or not.

It's not a question of liking it or not. If it's an unfair or meaningless comparison people can make it all they want but it won't enter into any serious discussions of Marner or the team.

 

[Average Joes]

The tax situation is not as clear cut as Florida vs Ontario income taxes.  There are ways to save mentioned in the Forbes article. They apply to Tavares but some of which could apply to Marner especially since he got most of it in bonus money.  Point reportedly got a good chunk in bonus but not all of it.  www.forbes.com/sites/seanpackard/2018/07/06/john-tavares-could-save-nearly-12-million-in-taxes-on-his-new-contract/#2259c4aa1ab7

It would be interesting if someone could calculate the anticipated tax rate for Marner by using whatever tax savings are available. Add something reasonable for endorsements and then compare that to other RFAs.

 

[Frank E]

The Leafs should ask Ferris to go out there again on the sports radio circuit call-in shows and tell everyone about all those offer sheets that Marner turned down.

Another 90+ point RFA on a good team isn't comparable to Mitch Marner?...OK, sure.

Had he signed for $10.9m X 6, they sure wouldn't be saying that.