• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2024-25 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion

Ozzie said:
I think the screw up goes back to earlier years of negotiating a 2 year NMC at the end of the contract, and not moving him prior to it kicking in.

Leafs have zero leverage at that point.

It's a bargaining failure and asset management failure that is entirely on the shoulders of Dubas and Shanahan.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's another colossal management screw up. if Marner wanted all the money he doesn't get NTC is last year of the deal.

Maybe this is a cultural change that Leafs management can implement. Maybe a team rule where you only get NMC/NTC if you sign for the max term? And still I'd put partial NTC in final year.

At some point you have to say to the player do you want to be here or not?

I keep looking at what Vegas has accomplished by not being afraid of making a bad move, quite frankly the Eichel deal could have easily blown up in their face. Leafs management seem paralyzed by the fear of making a bad/bold move.
 
It's early, but Grebenkin and a 1st for Laughton is looking like a disaster.

Especially if you consider losing Dewar and Timmins too, yes they were salary clearing moves for mainly Carlo, but it all happened on the same day.

Dewar, Timmins, Grebenkin, Minten, 1st, 1st.

We really need Carlo and Laughton to be significant contributors.
 
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
It's early, but Grebenkin and a 1st for Laughton is looking like a disaster.

Especially if you consider losing Dewar and Timmins too, yes they were salary clearing moves for mainly Carlo, but it all happened on the same day.

Dewar, Timmins, Grebenkin, Minten, 1st, 1st.

We really need Carlo and Laughton to be significant contributors.
Click to expand...
I'm not crazy about the Laughton deal - hate parting with 1st rounders. I looked at him last year and revisited this year. He's better than what we've seen so far. It was a seller's market ...

Here's the thing that has me on edge:
Best case is the Leafs chances to win a Cup are 10% (very likely less than that based upon recent play)
So there is a 90% or more chance there will not be a parade. Blunt facts.

If there is no parade, logically, one would change the roster for another run in the Matthews "window" (UFA 3 yrs after this).
16 of the 22 guys on the roster have contracts for next season.
Holmberg, Robertson, Lorentz don't but they're not earth shattering talent - on the low end of the cap totem pole.
RFA Knies they have to re-sign
The only two UFAs to shake things up are Marner & Tavares. With few assets, the only way to replace them is on the UFA market - which is pretty lean already and will be leaner by July 1st.
We don't have a lot of young assets to help swing trades.

It is not impossible to adjust the roster, obviously. I'm sure they will. But if this roster craps the bed in the playoffs, they've got a real uphill battle to materially correct it. And their D is starting to get older.
 
dappleganger said:
At some point you have to say to the player do you want to be here or not?
Click to expand...
I don’t get where you’re going with this. What says ‘I want to be here’ more than a no trade clause? Look in baseball, you’ve got players who have opt outs built into their deals so they can leave or renegotiate their contract.

I’m just not following the logic of this particular point.
 
Joe S. said:
I don’t get where you’re going with this. What says ‘I want to be here’ more than a no trade clause? Look in baseball, you’ve got players who have opt outs built into their deals so they can leave or renegotiate their contract.

I’m just not following the logic of this particular point.
Click to expand...

A no trade clause is a concession to the player that is detrimental to the team. If the player is demanding a full no trade clause or he won't sign, then don't sign the player.

A no trade clause doesn't say I want to be here, players with no trade clauses get moved all the time. It says I want to be in charge of my future movement, not the team.
 
dappleganger said:
A no trade clause is a concession to the player that is detrimental to the team. If the player is demanding a full no trade clause or he won't sign, then don't sign the player.

A no trade clause doesn't say I want to be here, players with no trade clauses get moved all the time. It says I want to be in charge of my future movement, not the team.
Click to expand...
Ok fine - but this isn’t some maple leafs exclusive feature. Every player of note has some form of a no trade or no movement clause. Who, of prominence, in the NHL doesn’t have one?
 
dappleganger said:
Exactly, he didn't have a full no move clause. Sorry, the crux of my argument was that Leafs management should have had a partial no trade in the final year of Marner's contract.
Click to expand...
A quick scan of the top 25 scorers since 2016-17 when Marner came into the league (which includes all of the Leafs core 4), most have a NMC with all but one now having a NMC or full No trade clause (Rantanen being the most recent addition to that club). Kucherov, the only exception I noticed, has a 10 team trade list. More than 18% of the league (~133 players) has a NMC or full no trade clause. Pretty tough to fault management on that - the whole league was doing it for the top scorers.
 
If you look at Tampa Bay, their re-signings of Kucherov, Brayden Point, Hedman, Sargachev, Hagel, all received a modified a no-trade clause in the last 3 years of their deals. (Hedman's newest contract signed in '24 has a full NMC that takes him until his age 38 season).
 
Last edited:
dappleganger said:
If you look at Tampa Bay, their re-signings of Kucherov, Brayden Point, Hedman, Sargachev, Hagel, all received a modified a no-trade clause in the last 3 years of their deals. (Hedman's newest contract signed in '24 has a full NMC that takes him until his age 38 season).
Click to expand...
I don't regard Sergachev or Hagel in the same salary district as Marner or others.

At the time of the signing of his deal, Rantanen was not as high on the scoring leaders list as Marner but he's never been regarded nearly as good defensively so he is rung down on the cap/trade clause pecking order.

Most of the top 10 scorers have NMC clauses throughout.

We see some like Point that morph into a limited clause at the end of their deal when they are 5 or more years older than Marner is now.
I think you have to consider the context of each situation.

Generally, I do not think the Leafs were out of line granting a NMC for someone like Marner at the time. A lot of top players got them.

It would not surprise me if it turned out that the lack of settlement between Marner & Treliving was on NMC or no trade clauses as much or more than $. There's probably a line of NHL GMs team rubbing their hands together with NMCs in anticipation of July 1st. Most GMs aren't going to last another 8 years with the same team anyway - including Treliving (only 4 (12.5%) have been in their current role for more than 8 years).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top