The puck was lobbed at him and he was swimming as he tried to get out of the way. He thought he could go under the lob but nope... lol.
2024-25 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion
- Thread starter herman
- Start date
dappleganger
Well-known member
Here's is a list of, what I think we can agree on, top players that did not receive a full NMC/NTC like Marner received, on the deal that took them to UFA status:
Alex Ovechkin, Leon Draisaitl, John Tavares, David Pastrnak, Alex Barkov, Cale Makar, Johnny Gaudreau, Jonathan Huberdeau, Carey Price, Drew Doughty, (I stopped looking).
6 out of the top 10 scorers since 2016-2017 did not have a full-NTC on the contract taking them to UFA status.
William Nylander had a modified-NTC in his final year of his deal. Morgan Rielly also had a modified-NTC.
My issue is that Leafs management, once again, did not do what it seems like other teams are able to do when it comes to contract negotiations and I won't give them a pass on that. At least if they had a M-NTC provision in the contract with Marner in the final year the Leafs would have had some modicum of leverage. They could have said to Mitch at the deadline, look, we want you back. We'll make you the highest paid winger in the League, but you have to sign now or we're going to trade you.
Instead? Bupkis.
bustaheims
Well-known member
You're mistaken about some of them (though, in some cases, it was added as part of an extension - it's basically the only thing that can be retroactively introduced into a contract that way) and basically all of them had some form of trade protection. It's really just the cost of doing business with prominent players.
Last edited:
dappleganger
Well-known member
I'm aware of this Busta. Only once you reach UFA years can you receive a NMC/NTC. For example, Cale Makar would only be eligible to have a NTC clause in the last year of his current deal. I'm not arguing whether these players had some form of trade protection. Again, my argument is that Marner should have had a modified no-trade clause in the final year of his current deal instead of a full no-trade clause. (I'm not arguing a no move clause).
It says John Tavares had a modified no-trade (an eight-team no-trade list) on the last two years of his deal leading up to his unrestricted free agency. I'm using puckpedia as my resource:
Last edited:
bustaheims
Well-known member
That’s really splitting hairs, to be honest. If a player doesn’t want to be traded, it’s pretty easy for them to block the teams that they know have the assets and the need to get a trade done. They still basically control their own fate. Modified clauses most give teams the illusion of freedom.
herman
Well-known member
Perhaps
Hockey’s March Madness: NHL teams chasing top undrafted NCAA free agents for 2025
Denver’s Carter King headlines the list of college players expected to draw NHL interest.
www.dailyfaceoff.com
dappleganger
Well-known member
bustaheims
Well-known member
You mean the exception that will be reason every high end player will be absolutely demanding full trade protection moving forward?Tell that to Mikko Rantanen.
Ozzie
Active member
The switch from Milk to Coffee must have given Superman wings.
Ovechkin, Price, Doughty were signed under the prior CBA - it was a very different CBA era. Some were longer deals: 10-13 years. No trade type clauses, etc became more popular after that in part, because the cap limited what else they could haggle and the CBA changed. In 2020, a year after they re-signed Marner, the CBA was changed to maintain those clauses if a player was traded before they kicked in.
As well, NMC and no trade clauses were only available in a season where the player would be UFA eligible. They were totally negotiated. Marner could have left as a UFA after 7 NHL seasons. So the NMC / no trades clauses were enticing him or others to hang around AFTER they were UFA eligible. Marner may well have said "screw you Dubas, I'm a UFA at age 25/26 and I can go wherever I want then! Give me a NMC for the 2 UFA years or I'll just get one via being a UFA at age 25/26. It is your choice. Take it or leave it. I'm going to get that protection one way or the other."
So lets not pretend Dubas was in a great negotiating position. He bought two UFA seasons from Marner for 2 NMC.
Just before Marner signed, Panarin, who lacked any trade protection in his prior deal, left Columbus as a UFA. In spite of all their efforts to keep him, Columbus got nothing for him. So there were some shock waves rippling through the league at the time Marner was about to sign. Lets not forget that either. Things happen for a reason and you can't forget the context.
All the other players you mentioned went through similar processes. Because Marner was a top scorer and very capable defensively, he would fall into the upper echelon of the movement/trade clauses a player could get. Couple that with a strong agent, the circumstances, etc and voila. I do not think it is the big management screw up some make it out to be.
Last edited:
They negotiated and came to an agreement with all the modified no trade terms - 9 team no trade list in exchange for a couple of his UFA years?Tell that to Mikko Rantanen.
So Rantanen agreed with what could happen to him with respect to a trade. Colorado honored that agreement.
As well, the reason Colorado traded him was allegedly due to how high his contract demands were. So things are not happening in a vacuum here where he has no responsibility for where he finds himself. If he left some money on the table, he'd probably still be in Colorado. He chose to do otherwise - which is his right but it is also Colorado's right to do otherwise as they agreed to in the contract.
A contract is between two parties. It is not all one party's fault here while the other is totally exonerated.
dappleganger
Well-known member
To put it simply, why does every team seem to be able to get a more favourable contract done with their players than the Leafs?
Maybe this loser mentality from the front office bleeds it's way to the team?
Rantanen and Marner were the same age, position, signing their deals weeks apart and both were signed for 6-years. (It'd be hard to find a closer comparison). Rantanen was coming off 2 ppg seasons prior to signing and Marner 1. One guy got almost $1.65m more per season and a full no-trade in eligible seasons.
Explain it away anyway you like but it would have been better if the Leafs had a modified no-trade on the last Marner's deal, seeing how they wanted to trade him.
Maybe this loser mentality from the front office bleeds it's way to the team?
Rantanen and Marner were the same age, position, signing their deals weeks apart and both were signed for 6-years. (It'd be hard to find a closer comparison). Rantanen was coming off 2 ppg seasons prior to signing and Marner 1. One guy got almost $1.65m more per season and a full no-trade in eligible seasons.
Explain it away anyway you like but it would have been better if the Leafs had a modified no-trade on the last Marner's deal, seeing how they wanted to trade him.
Last edited:
A difference between the two is like the Nylander-Marner debate but not as extreme. Both put up points. One of them plays a 200 foot game better. Marners points numbers are also better.To put it simply, why does every team seem to be able to get a more favourable contracts done with their players than the Leafs?
Maybe this loser mentality from the front office bleeds it's way to the team?
Rantanen and Marner were the same age, position, signing their deals weeks apart and both were signed for 6-years. (It'd be hard to find a closer comparison). Rantanen was coming off 2 ppg seasons prior to signing and Marner 1. One guy got almost $1.65m more per season and a full no-trade in eligible seasons.
Explain it away anyway you like but it would have been better if the Leafs had a modified no-trade on the last Marner's deal, seeing how they wanted to trade him.
What do they have in common: Rantanen was willing to sign the deal he did as Marner was willing to sign the deal he did.
But the difference is Marner was unwilling to sign the deal Rantanen did on terms of no-trade clause. Marner demanded and held out for more: a NMC and he got it.
If the Leafs insisted on a modified no-trade, Marner may have insisted on "Ok, I'll become a UFA in 2023, like Panarin, so we don't have to argue about modified no-trade deals and I won't have to worry about where you might send me. I can go wherever I want then. Simple!"
On the other end of the scale, Panarin had no trade limit on his deal that ended in 2019 because he wasn't a UFA yet. He wanted to play in a big city. So he went straight for UFA status and the freedom to go wherever. That too was an option Rantanen passed on.
Gaudreau had a modified no-trade clause and Treliving still lost him for nothing.
The trade clause may be what Treliving & Marner are not agreeing on now.
Ozzie
Active member
100%.To put it simply, why does every team seem to be able to get a more favourable contracts done with their players than the Leafs?
Maybe this loser mentality from the front office bleeds it's way to the team?
Rantanen and Marner were the same age, position, signing their deals weeks apart and both were signed for 6-years. (It'd be hard to find a closer comparison). Rantanen was coming off 2 ppg seasons prior to signing and Marner 1. One guy got almost $1.65m more per season and a full no-trade in eligible seasons.
Explain it away anyway you like but it would have been better if the Leafs had a modified no-trade on the last Marner's deal, seeing how they wanted to trade him.
Ozzie
Active member
I've always been a big proponent of Rielly. Primarily because in earlier years he has shown the most heart and soul on this team and was remarkable in the defeat of Tampa in the playoffs. He got jumped by multiple Tampa players... had his nose busted....kept playing... and scored the OT winner with a bloody rag hanging from his schnoz.
But in recent seasons Rielly has plainly sucked.
Last night he made the lamest attempt to clear the puck from his own end and put it right on the stick of the Rangers defender than within a few passes after the giveaway ended up in the back of the Leafs net. It was "Holl-ian" in its incompetence. A simple play where Rielly had ample time and space that was executed like a guy that dialed it in.
Berube talked about accountability. He didn't play Rielly at the end of the game. But he should just out right bench this guy to send a message. We know he's a good player. He doesn't even appear to be trying sometimes.
But in recent seasons Rielly has plainly sucked.
Last night he made the lamest attempt to clear the puck from his own end and put it right on the stick of the Rangers defender than within a few passes after the giveaway ended up in the back of the Leafs net. It was "Holl-ian" in its incompetence. A simple play where Rielly had ample time and space that was executed like a guy that dialed it in.
Berube talked about accountability. He didn't play Rielly at the end of the game. But he should just out right bench this guy to send a message. We know he's a good player. He doesn't even appear to be trying sometimes.
L K
Well-known member
Through 69 games the Leafs are 42-24-3. Good for 87 points. They have 34 regulation wins and 41 ROWs. 222 GF/ 203 GA
Through 69 games last year they were 40-20-9. Good for 89 points. They had 28 regulation wins and 35 ROWs. 257 GF/222 GA
So the Leafs are winning more games in regulation and are less reliant on shoot out wins.
They are down 19 goals against but also down 35 goals for.
Through 69 games last year Matthews had 57 goals. This year he has 27. There is your scoring difference. This exact team with a healthy Matthews is likely running away with the division right now.
Through 69 games last year they were 40-20-9. Good for 89 points. They had 28 regulation wins and 35 ROWs. 257 GF/222 GA
So the Leafs are winning more games in regulation and are less reliant on shoot out wins.
They are down 19 goals against but also down 35 goals for.
Through 69 games last year Matthews had 57 goals. This year he has 27. There is your scoring difference. This exact team with a healthy Matthews is likely running away with the division right now.
My favourite thing about Prokop is how I've seen him described as both a heavy shutdown defenceman and also a non-physical, so-so defensively creative puck moving defenceman. College free agency season is fun.
When they trade away prospects and picks, they have to try to fill the prospect hopper somehow.
I'm happy to see them get a few more prospect lines in the water.
With all the resources the Leafs have, they should be able to develop some depth this way.
They've had some success:
McMann, Benoit, Myers, Steeves, Rifai & Quillan are all undrafted.
I'm happy to see them get a few more prospect lines in the water.
With all the resources the Leafs have, they should be able to develop some depth this way.
They've had some success:
McMann, Benoit, Myers, Steeves, Rifai & Quillan are all undrafted.
Ozzie
Active member
Very interesting post.
If Matthews could do a "Matthews Pace" of let's say 50 to 65 goals (let's say 57) AND the team plays Berube style and keeps GA low, this team gets a totally different result.
People tend to think the GF reduction is due to Berube's system.... but William Nylander is NO. 2 in goals this season and Tavares is also crushing it. So, consistent with your post, the difference this season is the Matthews' differential. And if that was on pace.... results would be improved substantially.
If this team makes a run..... it looks like it's going to come down to him.
And therein lies the Achilles heel too with respect to coverage by opposition.
Last edited: