Tkachuk signs bridge deal [3 years, $7mil AAV]

[princedpw]

I think Rantanen's contract is going to be an interesting comparable; you think he has the advantage of playing with McKinnon; well, I think Marner has the advantage of playing with Tavares over Aho and Aho's a center and scored more goals and it goes on and on and on ...

Well, it may be a minor point but I'd say Rantanen's "advantage" isn't Mackinnon but rather Mackinnon and Landeskog over Tavares and Hyman.

And Aho and Marner's deal aren't wildly far apart in terms of the standards I'm using.

I looked up the guys you mentioned:

Boeser:  5.76 predicted for a 3-year contract.  He got 5.87.

Konecny: 5.9 predicted for 6 years.  He got 5.5.

Marner: 8.8 predicted for 6 years.  He got 10.8.

Thanks, but I'm not trying to measure these guys using that system and whether or not it was accurate(in part because, quite frankly, I'm not interested in arguing about whatever method they're using). I'm saying, just in terms of points per % of the cap they got, Marner's deal lines up with these guys pretty reasonably. If Marner had gotten 8.8 per he'd have gotten .112 of the cap for every point he scored last year. Konecny got .139 of the cap per point scored. Kessel got .158.

I just don't see how that lines up at all.

Well, the model is probably saying that historically, there have been other factors that have gone into determining what a player gets paid.  Points aren't the only one.  My guess is that it is weighing goals more heavily than you are.

 

[Kin]

Well, the model is probably saying that historically, there have been other factors that have gone into determining what a player gets paid.  Points aren't the only one.  My guess is that it is weighing goals more heavily than you are.

I'm not saying points are the only one. I'm saying points are a pretty solid indicator of performance to consider and I think you'd have to come up with a pretty good explanation why Marner, who scored more goals than Konecny, would sign for much, much less of the cap per point than he did.

 

[mr grieves]

Well, the model is probably saying that historically, there have been other factors that have gone into determining what a player gets paid.  Points aren't the only one.  My guess is that it is weighing goals more heavily than you are.

I'm not saying points are the only one. I'm saying points are a pretty solid indicator of performance to consider and I think you'd have to come up with a pretty good explanation why Marner, who scored more goals than Konecny, would sign for much, much less of the cap per point than he did.

I would guess such an explanation would run something like: "because points aren't chits you accumulate and trade in when your contract's up for fractions of a percent of the cap? that's not how contract values are actually determined?"

 

[Andy007]

Another RFA that wasn't overpaid by over $2 million per season. Good for Calgary.

See, I'm not sure how the math works here because I definitely value Marner above Tkachuk. And if Marner had, like Tkachuk, signed for 3 years then his 10.9 AAV probably goes down to, what, 8? 8.5? Even at, say, 9 million, I still take Marner over Tkachuk at 7.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Another RFA that wasn't overpaid by over $2 million per season. Good for Calgary.

See, I'm not sure how the math works here because I definitely value Marner above Tkachuk. And if Marner had, like Tkachuk, signed for 3 years then his 10.9 AAV probably goes down to, what, 8? 8.5? Even at, say, 9 million, I still take Marner over Tkachuk at 7.

Big difference signing a bridge and long term. The same contract for Tkachuk in T.O. is $384K less after tax.

 

[Kin]

I would guess such an explanation would run something like: "because points aren't chits you accumulate and trade in when your contract's up for fractions of a percent of the cap? that's not how contract values are actually determined?"

I admit I'm not an expert in these things but I would wager pretty heavily that in NHL history there is no other single objective measurement is as strongly correlated to salary as points are. Likewise things like all-star and MVP voting.

I get that in order to try and justify the idea that Marner got overpaid you guys have to start off by trying to make the case that the actual economic reality of what these players are worth is irrelevant which is basically hopping on one foot but to follow it up with "Oh, and also, points aren't really all that important when players get valued" just turns you into the Black Knight in the Monty Python movie.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I seem to have a real hard time getting worked up about these contracts(including Marner's). I just don't get why people are so upset.
If I'm getting paid 200k and a guy down the road is getting paid 300k for the same job and performance..is it really that the 300k guy was greedy? Or was I just a poor negotiator?

 

[Strangelove]

Another RFA that wasn't overpaid by over $2 million per season. Good for Calgary.

See, I'm not sure how the math works here because I definitely value Marner above Tkachuk. And if Marner had, like Tkachuk, signed for 3 years then his 10.9 AAV probably goes down to, what, 8? 8.5? Even at, say, 9 million, I still take Marner over Tkachuk at 7.

Apparently Marner was asking for well over 8-8.5 on a bridge deal.

In any case, the issue isn't really whether we would take Marner over Tkachuk. The issue is whether Marner is significantly overpaid relative to comparable players, and whether that puts the Leafs at a relative disadvantage. Most people who know about these sorts of things seem to think the answer to the first question is yes.

 

[Kin]

I seem to have a real hard time getting worked up about these contracts(including Marner's).

It's because these days there's a significant number of fans who see the game in nothing but spreadsheets and fantasy sports and can't appreciate anything without seeing it through the lens of pretending they're a GM who would be, you know, really really good at negotiating.

See, Dubas didn't do the good negotiating. That was his mistake. He did bad negotiating. And these ten penny amateurs would have done less bad negotiating and more good negotiating. That's why they're smart.

 

[Strangelove]

I guess we're resorting to straw man arguments at this point?

Presumably many of us are capable of watching and appreciating the game while also assessing NHL contracts in a forum discussion regarding same. This isn't binary.

 

[Zee]

Another RFA that wasn't overpaid by over $2 million per season. Good for Calgary.

See, I'm not sure how the math works here because I definitely value Marner above Tkachuk. And if Marner had, like Tkachuk, signed for 3 years then his 10.9 AAV probably goes down to, what, 8? 8.5? Even at, say, 9 million, I still take Marner over Tkachuk at 7.

Apparently Marner was asking for well over 8-8.5 on a bridge deal.

In any case, the issue isn't really whether we would take Marner over Tkachuk. The issue is whether Marner is significantly overpaid relative to comparable players, and whether that puts the Leafs at a relative disadvantage. Most people who know about these sorts of things seem to think the answer to the first question is yes.

The talk is Rantanen is asking for "something in the 9s" on a long term deal which is right where Marner's deal should have been. He's a close comparable.

 

[Kin]

Last year, with significantly less good linemates, Marner outscored Rantanen at 5v5 23 goals to 15. Marner got roughly 66% of Rantanen's PP TOI while killing penalties. The end result of their seasons was Marner outdoing Rantanen in end of year all-star voting by the very close margin of 129 points to 14.

I don't think Dubas cares if people think he overpaid for Marner but if he did then Rantanen getting something in the 9's would be terrific for him.