2019 Toronto Maple Leafs Offseason Discussion
- Thread starter herman
- Start date
Guilt Trip
Well-known member
In other news........For a team to get Marner signed to an offer sheet, they will have to overpay his actual worth. Don't agree with that, I don't care.Nik the Trik said:
Kin
Active member
Guilt Trip said:
I don't think there is any one thing that dictates a player's "actual" worth. As we saw with the Nylander negotiations using other salaries around the league don't really do it because there are lots of guys who are probably underpaid and lots of guys who are overpaid. This further contaminates the idea that a player who is X amount of "good" should be paid with X percent of the cap because there is no real league-wide standard. If anything, because of the nature of the free agent market, the league has probably tended towards over valuing depth players and undervaluing stars.
Which is why the "Oh, we'll just sign Panarin or Skinner" stuff is so unappealing. If people think Marner as a RFA will need to be "overpaid" then just wait until they remember what the UFA market is like.
Bullfrog
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Agreed. Here's Panarin's stats over his four years in the NHL (GP/G/A/P): (0.99 pts/gm)
2015-16 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 80 30 47 77
2016-17 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 82 31 43 74
2017-18 Columbus Blue Jackets NHL 81 27 55 82
2018-19 Columbus Blue Jackets NHL 79 28 59 87
and Tavares's four years prior to his deal: (0.96 pts/gm)
2014-15 New York Islanders NHL 82 38 48 86
2015-16 New York Islanders NHL 78 33 37 70
2016-17 New York Islanders NHL 77 28 38 66
2017-18 New York Islanders NHL 82 37 47 84
Panarin is getting a huge contract.
Kin
Active member
Andy said:
Sort of. I mean, I get that there are examples of things like Clarkson where the inefficiencies of the market(one of which is that GMs often make bad decisions) lead to situations where a player's market value ends up in them getting a contract where the tying up of cap space vs. a player's on-ice contributions lead to a net-negative for the team that signs him.
But, with that said, there's still no one way to determine value. Even if you take Clarkson as an example it was absolutely right and fair for his representatives to try and negotiate a contract for him based on what teams were willing to pay him rather than the more vague concept of how good a hockey player he is/was. Likewise, as I've said before, it's fair for guys on the Leafs to negotiate based on what value they're actually creating for the team in terms of dollars rather than an established league-wide salary structure.
I appreciate that there are people out there who want the Leafs to find a number, stick to it and say to Marner "We think this is fair and it's what we need competitively, either take it or we start exploring options" and it may be an effective tactic, I don't know, but I do think it would fit the concept of "nickel and diming" a player if you're asking him to take substantially(and in these negotiations, any difference is a substantial amount of money) less than he could get elsewhere because of your own budgetary concerns.
Bullfrog
Active member
Agreed.
Marner's camp could simply turn it around: "I'm sorry about your budget constraints, but here's what I'm worth and I'll get it from you or from someone else. Figure out your budget or bye bye."
The main reason I state this is to show how ridiculous of a negotiating tactic it would be to draw a hard, and ultimately arbitrary, line in the sand regardless of which side of the table you sit at.
I'm of the opinion that if anyone holds more cards than the other, it's Marner. He's going to get paid regardless if it's from the Leafs or another team. Worst part for him is he might have to move to New York or Los Angeles or Montreal or wherever to spend his millions. If TO doesn't sign Marner, they're in a bad spot and would be on equal negotiating terms with all other free agents. Panarin's the only one who really could fill Marner's void and why would they pay him $10M+ and not just give it to Marner?
Marner's camp could simply turn it around: "I'm sorry about your budget constraints, but here's what I'm worth and I'll get it from you or from someone else. Figure out your budget or bye bye."
The main reason I state this is to show how ridiculous of a negotiating tactic it would be to draw a hard, and ultimately arbitrary, line in the sand regardless of which side of the table you sit at.
I'm of the opinion that if anyone holds more cards than the other, it's Marner. He's going to get paid regardless if it's from the Leafs or another team. Worst part for him is he might have to move to New York or Los Angeles or Montreal or wherever to spend his millions. If TO doesn't sign Marner, they're in a bad spot and would be on equal negotiating terms with all other free agents. Panarin's the only one who really could fill Marner's void and why would they pay him $10M+ and not just give it to Marner?
mr grieves
New member
Bullfrog said:
They wouldn't?
They want Marner for something like what players like him make after their ELC (~11.5% of upcoming cap or $9-9.5m). That, or something like it, is probably what they've decided their budget (for next season) is for him, what would allow them to retain other players and perhaps add a bit. Marner at $11m means they can't add, might lose a player.
So,
Marner @ $11m and lose Kapanen, add nothing
or
Kapanen, UFA winger (Skinner?), four firsts (or picks & prospects), and lose Marner.
What gets you the better team?
ZBBM
Well-known member
Doesn't all this boil down to two different senses of "market value": one, a completely vacuous one, is that market value is whatever some single individual is willing to pay (a one-time event); the other is some number based on "comparables," whatever a group of others in the same market are willing to pay (a number that shifts over time). In the fine art market, somebody just paid $90M for a rabbit sculpture the other day. That doesn't mean my play-doh Bugs Bunny is suddenly worth $90M. It doesn't even mean that it's suddenly worth $1 instead of 10 cents.
Kin
Active member
mr grieves said:
Feels like you're stacking the deck there a little bit by not actually mentioning what this UFA winger is getting, what the Leafs could get back via moving Kapanen and not thinking about this long term. Yes, immediately speaking the Leafs are in a cap crunch but past next year the idea that Kapanen would be replaced by nobody doesn't make sense.
The equation, at least in terms of next year, is probably more:
Kapanen + Skinner(or whoever) + what you get for Marner
vs.
Marner + what you get for Kapanen + Bracco
Kin
Active member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Yes. One is what the term actually means. What something would likely sell for if it were available to bidders. Hockey players aren't an interchangeable commodity.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
What it would mean is that works by the same artist would likely increase in value. Same with works by similar artists or of a similar style. Likewise, if someone like Marner gets 11.5 million it would raise what other wingers might get on the market.
If your point is that art buyers, perhaps similarly to sports team owners, sometimes spend more money than you might think is reasonable on unique things...I mean, yeah? Welcome to the last 50 years, I suppose.
Highlander
Active member
Make one wonder what is going to happen when 4 players take up to 50% of your cap, not just on a few teams but on all 32 teams.. Isn't it time to introduce a luxury tax, like the NBA?
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Bullfrog said:
Arguably, the worst part for him may be not so much changing teams and cities but rather signing a contract to play for a team that, in his heart, isn't the team he actually wants to play for. Only he knows how strong a motivator that truly is for him, and obviously he's not going to share it with us or with Leaf management.
hockeyfan1
New member
Highlander said:
The trouble with the luxury tax a la NBA would be the potential to create ?super teams?. The Leafs would definitely benefit here.
The problem with that is what of the small market teams? Unless of course there is some sort of revenue-sharing.
Also, it may, by creating these super teams, thereby prevent smaller market teams (such as this year?s diverse crop of playoff representatives the non-traditional large markets) from competing. It?s doubtful the NHL?s Board of Governors views a luxury tax with eagerness.
Parity aside, it would inject a certain excitability for both fans and teams as players would have more freedom of movement, etc. and things would become a little more unpredictable.
It may be time to shake things up.
bustaheims
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
Or even with a hard cap. For example, having a soft cap at $75M, and a luxury tax on everything up to a hard cap of $100M. That would help alleviate some of the worries of a ?super team? (as unrealistic and unreasonable a fear as it in a sport like hockey where teams require more depth), while allowing richer teams some opportunity to flex their financial muscle.
Highlander
Active member
There were many years when the Yankees outspent their competition by huge margins and did not win.
Seems the same thing happened to several NHL teams before the Cap era.
I just can't fathom the dichotomy of 4 players taking up half or more of the pie. It will force a lot of players with a lot of talent either off teams or having to settle for a lot less than market value because other teams can't afford to pay them either.
I am thinking Johnsson and to some extent Kapanen here.
If every team starts spending 50% plus on 4 players, how are Johnsson or Kapi going to move for bigger dollars. Sort of like the rich getting richer and the poor not getting as rich.
Perhaps a look at the MLS solution where you have 3 or 4 players marked as exempt?? Not sure of the system but the NHL's is looking set to being broken when the inevitable happens.
Seems the same thing happened to several NHL teams before the Cap era.
I just can't fathom the dichotomy of 4 players taking up half or more of the pie. It will force a lot of players with a lot of talent either off teams or having to settle for a lot less than market value because other teams can't afford to pay them either.
I am thinking Johnsson and to some extent Kapanen here.
If every team starts spending 50% plus on 4 players, how are Johnsson or Kapi going to move for bigger dollars. Sort of like the rich getting richer and the poor not getting as rich.
Perhaps a look at the MLS solution where you have 3 or 4 players marked as exempt?? Not sure of the system but the NHL's is looking set to being broken when the inevitable happens.
Highlander
Active member
Agreed Nik, no problem with this at all. In some ways this may help us keep players such as Johnsson and Kappi in the home court as no one else will be able to afford them either.Nik the Trik said:
Highlander
Active member
Bob McKenzie saying Leafs are bringing back Hainsey on a one year deal.