Auston Matthews Extension: 13.25M AAV x 4yrs

[Kin]

Hey, remember when people said he'd leave as a free agent for Arizona?

Now that that's officially behind us we can all admit...that was the dumbest thing anyone could have thought, right? Like, no sought after UFA in hockey right now is signing in Arizona unless there's a gun to their head.

If Matthews hangs around after this four years, he'll have a bundle of franchise records.

However, in four years time, depending on their building & ownership, Az might be an attractive destination as an up and coming team. They've stock piled some youth on their roster and a lot of youngsters in their system (RESERVE LIST: 79/90). They have 13 extra picks over the next 3 years.

Also, I hear Houston has a great food scene.

 

[ZBBM]

Hey, remember when people said he'd leave as a free agent for Arizona?

Now that that's officially behind us we can all admit...that was the dumbest thing anyone could have thought, right? Like, no sought after UFA in hockey right now is signing in Arizona unless there's a gun to their head.

If Matthews hangs around after this four years, he'll have a bundle of franchise records.

However, in four years time, depending on their building & ownership, Az might be an attractive destination as an up and coming team. They've stock piled some youth on their roster and a lot of youngsters in their system (RESERVE LIST: 79/90). They have 13 extra picks over the next 3 years.

Also, I hear Houston has a great food scene.

Nik, you are sitting at 29,999 posts.  Make sure the next one is worthy of being set in stone.

 

[Kin]

Nik, you are sitting at 29,999 posts.  Make sure the next one is worthy of being set in stone.

Ok.

 

[L K]

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the term.  It's not just on this site, even the media narrative is around how this is so abnormal and only a Leaf thing.  If Matthews had signed a three year deal, I would have been okay. The team is getting flexibility here, and in a cap system that is a great thing to have.  Just because no other superstar has done it doesn't mean that somehow the Leafs are in a bad spot by doing it.  I  think this works well for both the team and the player. 

If the Leafs could extend Nylander for a year or two and then come back to the table, that would be great.  Nylander would have to be comfortable with betting on himself, and that he won't have some sort of catastrophic injury, but as the Leafs would be coming out of the Tavares contract, and they would have an idea of what they would be paying Marner, then you would have more options with Nylander. 

I have a hard time seeing Nylander being ok with betting on himself.  Not that 6.9M was him getting taken to the cleaners but he's the guy who is probably most deserving of a pay bump and its hard to see him not wanting term.  He'll also be 28 when he starts his new contract so signing an extension at 30 seems riskier for him to get a 7 or 8 year deal at bigger money.

 

[Frank E]

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the term.  It's not just on this site, even the media narrative is around how this is so abnormal and only a Leaf thing.  If Matthews had signed a three year deal, I would have been okay. The team is getting flexibility here, and in a cap system that is a great thing to have.  Just because no other superstar has done it doesn't mean that somehow the Leafs are in a bad spot by doing it.  I  think this works well for both the team and the player. 

If the Leafs could extend Nylander for a year or two and then come back to the table, that would be great.  Nylander would have to be comfortable with betting on himself, and that he won't have some sort of catastrophic injury, but as the Leafs would be coming out of the Tavares contract, and they would have an idea of what they would be paying Marner, then you would have more options with Nylander. 

I have a hard time seeing Nylander being ok with betting on himself.  Not that 6.9M was him getting taken to the cleaners but he's the guy who is probably most deserving of a pay bump and its hard to see him not wanting term.  He'll also be 28 when he starts his new contract so signing an extension at 30 seems riskier for him to get a 7 or 8 year deal at bigger money.

I never saw Nylander as being a big priority to lock up this summer.  It was Matthews that was going to be the sideshow distraction.

 

[ZBBM]

Nik, you are sitting at 29,999 posts.  Make sure the next one is worthy of being set in stone.

Ok.

Stonecarvers charge by the letter.  We all admire your frugality.  That said, if you had signed an 8-year deal here, like we all told you to, you could have splurged on your 30k milestone.  (Or is it "millstone"?)

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the term.  It's not just on this site, even the media narrative is around how this is so abnormal and only a Leaf thing.  If Matthews had signed a three year deal, I would have been okay. The team is getting flexibility here, and in a cap system that is a great thing to have.  Just because no other superstar has done it doesn't mean that somehow the Leafs are in a bad spot by doing it.  I  think this works well for both the team and the player. 

If the Leafs could extend Nylander for a year or two and then come back to the table, that would be great.  Nylander would have to be comfortable with betting on himself, and that he won't have some sort of catastrophic injury, but as the Leafs would be coming out of the Tavares contract, and they would have an idea of what they would be paying Marner, then you would have more options with Nylander. 

I have a hard time seeing Nylander being ok with betting on himself.  Not that 6.9M was him getting taken to the cleaners but he's the guy who is probably most deserving of a pay bump and its hard to see him not wanting term.  He'll also be 28 when he starts his new contract so signing an extension at 30 seems riskier for him to get a 7 or 8 year deal at bigger money.

True, and that would be harder to swallow from Nylander's point of view.  If the team is saying "Hey sign this two year deal 9.5 million and then we'll re-up with you when the cap is higher, and we aren't as strapped" he might have a hard time trusting them.

Nylander at 8 years at 10 million might be okay.  He'll be mid 30's when the deal runs out.  I don't think physically Nylander will degrade all that much.  My concern would more be around his interest to play hockey in those last couple of years. 

 

[herman]

Once McDavid signs with the Leafs we'll have Matthews and McDavid together for at least 2 seasons

Apropos of nothing
https://twitter.com/PuckPedia/status/1687105945984458752

https://x.com/oileralert/status/1694494259301544379
A lot of? uh? boxes

 

[Zee]

Alot of consternation on the cap hit and the term. "McDavid signed for 12.5M over 8 years!" Yes he did, that works out to $100M to McDavid over the 8 years.

Matthews has now signed 2 contracts since his ELC totaling $111,195,000 or an average of $12.355M/9 years. Would we have been happy if Matthews signed a 9 (ok max 8 year deal) out of ELC for 12.36M? Yes we would have and that's what we have now.

 

[caver]

Nik, you are sitting at 29,999 posts.  Make sure the next one is worthy of being set in stone.

Ok.

perfect !

 

[herman]

https://x.com/puckpedia/status/1694546370236211708

 

[dappleganger]

Once McDavid signs with the Leafs we'll have Matthews and McDavid together for at least 2 seasons

Apropos of nothing
https://twitter.com/PuckPedia/status/1687105945984458752

https://twitter.com/oileralert/status/1694494259301544379
A lot of? uh? boxes

McDavid signing with the Leafs.

 

[mr grieves]

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the term.  It's not just on this site, even the media narrative is around how this is so abnormal and only a Leaf thing.  If Matthews had signed a three year deal, I would have been okay. The team is getting flexibility here, and in a cap system that is a great thing to have.  Just because no other superstar has done it doesn't mean that somehow the Leafs are in a bad spot by doing it.  I  think this works well for both the team and the player. 

If the Leafs could extend Nylander for a year or two and then come back to the table, that would be great.  Nylander would have to be comfortable with betting on himself, and that he won't have some sort of catastrophic injury, but as the Leafs would be coming out of the Tavares contract, and they would have an idea of what they would be paying Marner, then you would have more options with Nylander. 

I agree with all this on the way the deal itself balances Matthews' and the team's need for flexibility.

The part that I'm stuck on is the AAV -- well, less that than the share of the cap Matthews will consume. If the cap's $90m when the deal kicks in, it'll be 14.7% share of the team's cap. Looking at CapFriendly's historical archive (back to 15-16 season), the highest share of the cap any one player consumed was 13.3% (Malkin in 15-16).

I'm excited to see Matthews shred the Leafs' regular season record book, but I don't see how the team assembles the depth to seriously contend until the cap's at $100m.

 

[ZBBM]

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the term.  It's not just on this site, even the media narrative is around how this is so abnormal and only a Leaf thing.  If Matthews had signed a three year deal, I would have been okay. The team is getting flexibility here, and in a cap system that is a great thing to have.  Just because no other superstar has done it doesn't mean that somehow the Leafs are in a bad spot by doing it.  I  think this works well for both the team and the player. 

If the Leafs could extend Nylander for a year or two and then come back to the table, that would be great.  Nylander would have to be comfortable with betting on himself, and that he won't have some sort of catastrophic injury, but as the Leafs would be coming out of the Tavares contract, and they would have an idea of what they would be paying Marner, then you would have more options with Nylander. 

I agree with all this on the way the deal itself balances Matthews' and the team's need for flexibility.

The part that I'm stuck on is the AAV -- well, less that than the share of the cap Matthews will consume. If the cap's $90m when the deal kicks in, it'll be 14.7% share of the team's cap. Looking at CapFriendly's historical archive (back to 15-16 season), the highest share of the cap any one player consumed was 13.3% (Malkin in 15-16).

I'm excited to see Matthews shred the Leafs' regular season record book, but I don't see how the team assembles the depth to seriously contend until the cap's at $100m.

They need to quit dealing firsts at the deadline so that they get some cost-effective young talent in the lineup.  And I'm a guy who was all-in on ROR (the others, not so much).

 

[Kin]

The part that I'm stuck on is the AAV -- well, less that than the share of the cap Matthews will consume. If the cap's $90m when the deal kicks in, it'll be 14.7% share of the team's cap. Looking at CapFriendly's historical archive (back to 15-16 season), the highest share of the cap any one player consumed was 13.3% (Malkin in 15-16).

So the previous high was a guy who won a cup in the same year?

 

[Zee]

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the term.  It's not just on this site, even the media narrative is around how this is so abnormal and only a Leaf thing.  If Matthews had signed a three year deal, I would have been okay. The team is getting flexibility here, and in a cap system that is a great thing to have.  Just because no other superstar has done it doesn't mean that somehow the Leafs are in a bad spot by doing it.  I  think this works well for both the team and the player. 

If the Leafs could extend Nylander for a year or two and then come back to the table, that would be great.  Nylander would have to be comfortable with betting on himself, and that he won't have some sort of catastrophic injury, but as the Leafs would be coming out of the Tavares contract, and they would have an idea of what they would be paying Marner, then you would have more options with Nylander. 

I agree with all this on the way the deal itself balances Matthews' and the team's need for flexibility.

The part that I'm stuck on is the AAV -- well, less that than the share of the cap Matthews will consume. If the cap's $90m when the deal kicks in, it'll be 14.7% share of the team's cap. Looking at CapFriendly's historical archive (back to 15-16 season), the highest share of the cap any one player consumed was 13.3% (Malkin in 15-16).

I'm excited to see Matthews shred the Leafs' regular season record book, but I don't see how the team assembles the depth to seriously contend until the cap's at $100m.

I'm not understanding your numbers here.  13.3% of the cap isn't even what McDavid and MacKinnon are taking now, they both have a higher cap % than 13.3% currently.

 

[herman]

Ovechkin signed an 18.96% contract for 13 years (9.538462M AAV) in 2008 and the Capitals won the Cup in the 10th year of that deal

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the term.  It's not just on this site, even the media narrative is around how this is so abnormal and only a Leaf thing.  If Matthews had signed a three year deal, I would have been okay. The team is getting flexibility here, and in a cap system that is a great thing to have.  Just because no other superstar has done it doesn't mean that somehow the Leafs are in a bad spot by doing it.  I  think this works well for both the team and the player. 

If the Leafs could extend Nylander for a year or two and then come back to the table, that would be great.  Nylander would have to be comfortable with betting on himself, and that he won't have some sort of catastrophic injury, but as the Leafs would be coming out of the Tavares contract, and they would have an idea of what they would be paying Marner, then you would have more options with Nylander. 

I agree with all this on the way the deal itself balances Matthews' and the team's need for flexibility.

The part that I'm stuck on is the AAV -- well, less that than the share of the cap Matthews will consume. If the cap's $90m when the deal kicks in, it'll be 14.7% share of the team's cap. Looking at CapFriendly's historical archive (back to 15-16 season), the highest share of the cap any one player consumed was 13.3% (Malkin in 15-16).

I'm excited to see Matthews shred the Leafs' regular season record book, but I don't see how the team assembles the depth to seriously contend until the cap's at $100m.

Capfriendly has McDavid at 15% this year.  I think it was Busta who said that when McDavid signed his contract, he was at 16% of the cap.  It's a high percentage for sure, but an argument can be made that Matthews might be the second best player in the league behind McDavid, or at the very least a part of that tier of players that could occupy the second spot behind McDavid.

 

[mr grieves]

The part that I'm stuck on is the AAV -- well, less that than the share of the cap Matthews will consume. If the cap's $90m when the deal kicks in, it'll be 14.7% share of the team's cap. Looking at CapFriendly's historical archive (back to 15-16 season), the highest share of the cap any one player consumed was 13.3% (Malkin in 15-16).

So the previous high was a guy who won a cup in the same year?

Who are you referring to? Malkin?

I'm not understanding your numbers here.  13.3% of the cap isn't even what McDavid and MacKinnon are taking now, they both have a higher cap % than 13.3% currently.

Edmonton hasn't made the finals with that contract, and when Colorado won, MacKinnon was at a lot less.

Ovechkin signed an 18.96% contract for 13 years (9.538462M AAV) in 2008 and the Capitals won the Cup in the 10th year of that deal

Yep. 12.7% of a $75m cap. In the last year of Matthews deal, the cap might be high enough to get his in that range. So, that's one run.

Capfriendly has McDavid at 15% this year.  I think it was Busta who said that when McDavid signed his contract, he was at 16% of the cap.  It's a high percentage for sure, but an argument can be made that Matthews might be the second best player in the league behind McDavid, or at the very least a part of that tier of players that could occupy the second spot behind McDavid.

My argument is that teams with the best, and fairly compensated, players in the league don't make the Finals.

They need to quit dealing firsts at the deadline so that they get some cost-effective young talent in the lineup.  And I'm a guy who was all-in on ROR (the others, not so much).

Yes, this is a way out. But as (I think) Nik has often pointed out, accelerating the rebuild after winning the Matthews lotto has made it much harder to get prospects in the system who can be high-end, entry-level contributors.

 

[rdowdall]

Capfriendly has McDavid at 15% this year.  I think it was Busta who said that when McDavid signed his contract, he was at 16% of the cap.  It's a high percentage for sure, but an argument can be made that Matthews might be the second best player in the league behind McDavid, or at the very least a part of that tier of players that could occupy the second spot behind McDavid.

My argument is that teams with the best, and fairly compensated, players in the league don't make the Finals.

Ah, that wasn't how it was framed in the initial.  You were missing the part about it being on a team going to the finals.  If you want to frame it as a team that has made it to the finals, then yes, that changes the lens that you are looking at the numbers through.