Guilt Trip
Active member
They're not getting rid of any of the 4 unless it's a trade they can't refuse like Seth Jones for Marner kind of thing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guilt Trip said:They're not getting rid of any of the 4 unless it's a trade they can't refuse like Seth Jones for Marner kind of thing.
CarltonTheBear said:Guilt Trip said:They're not getting rid of any of the 4 unless it's a trade they can't refuse like Seth Jones for Marner kind of thing.
I can easily refuse a trade for 1 year of a good but overrated defenceman.
bustaheims said:CarltonTheBear said:Guilt Trip said:They're not getting rid of any of the 4 unless it's a trade they can't refuse like Seth Jones for Marner kind of thing.
I can easily refuse a trade for 1 year of a good but overrated defenceman.
Coming off probably the worst season of his career is not the best time to trade him (or judge him), but, yeah, unless there's another significant pieces coming in that deal (which, outside of Columbus' own 1st round pick, I'm not sure what would be valuable enough to make that deal palatable), it's going to be a deal for Marner. Something involving Rielly, maybe, though I suspect CLB will be looking for help up front.
Agree. I only mentioned Jones because that's what the so called experts are saying and it was mentioned during last night's telecast. I personally wouldn't trade Marner at all.Significantly Insignificant said:bustaheims said:CarltonTheBear said:Guilt Trip said:They're not getting rid of any of the 4 unless it's a trade they can't refuse like Seth Jones for Marner kind of thing.
I can easily refuse a trade for 1 year of a good but overrated defenceman.
Coming off probably the worst season of his career is not the best time to trade him (or judge him), but, yeah, unless there's another significant pieces coming in that deal (which, outside of Columbus' own 1st round pick, I'm not sure what would be valuable enough to make that deal palatable), it's going to be a deal for Marner. Something involving Rielly, maybe, though I suspect CLB will be looking for help up front.
The more I think about it, the more I think moving Rielly makes the most sense. You can probably get a lot for him, and you free up 5 million. Dermott and Sandin look to be ready to log more minutes and are way cheaper than Rielly.
herman said:https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1400095401307484162
It begins
I don't know the context but if people are blaming the PP solely on Marner that would be unfair.herman said:https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1400095401307484162
It begins
Guilt Trip said:I don't know the context but if people are blaming the PP solely on Marner that would be unfair.herman said:https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1400095401307484162
It begins
EDITED because I found the context...
The bs report was that Marner refused to play on the goal line on the PP....here's a link
https://www.tsn.ca/toronto-maple-leafs-winger-mitch-marner-report-on-pp-role-a-complete-lie-1.1648642
I don't think there's any truth to it. Don't see it.Chris said:Guilt Trip said:I don't know the context but if people are blaming the PP solely on Marner that would be unfair.herman said:https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1400095401307484162
It begins
EDITED because I found the context...
The bs report was that Marner refused to play on the goal line on the PP....here's a link
https://www.tsn.ca/toronto-maple-leafs-winger-mitch-marner-report-on-pp-role-a-complete-lie-1.1648642
Yeah, that report sounded questionable. If there's any truth to it this team has serious issues to sort out.
Arn said:I think it was justified to try the "four superstars" model and tinker round the edges.
I also think it is justified now to consider pivoting away from it. And as a few have said probably Marner is the most vulnerable to going.
A kay questions that comes to my mind -
Would Matthews score less without Marner? I don't think he would. But even if he did in the regular season I think it's more than balanced out by additions elsewhere in depth or in goal or wherever you can spread the $10m over say 3 positions instead of 1.
I'd be inclined to go one more season with the 4, though.
Heroic Shrimp said:Not only is all of that true, but also MacKinnon's contract became a real example for all the elite RFAs to follow about how many tens of millions they could leave on the table if they settle for too little over too many years too soon.Nik said:Like, I really don't know what to say to some people. I mean, I wish Dubas got to negotiate Matthews extension after two years of 14 and then 21 goals the way Colorado got to with Mackinnon but...he didn't? It sure would have been better for the Leafs cap situation if Matthews didn't immediately become one of the best goal scorers in the league and then stay there but...he did?
Nik said:Ok. So I'm Tavares' agent. You're Kyle Dubas. Convince me to sign for what Stamkos is getting. Or Point/Marner. Or Matthews/Kucherov. Or Hedman vs. virtually any other elite defenseman in the NHL.
At some point "But lookit Tampa..." isn't the answer to everything and you realize they're the exception, not the rule.
Yup. MacKinnon had a 53 point season when he signed his deal which was down from the year before when he had 52pts in less games. Mitch had 94 pts. Sucks that he was so good doesn't it? We needed our guys to be crappy until after they signed their next deals.L K said:That MacKinnon contract is a mirage. He signed it coming off a rookie contract production of:
218 GP - 59G 94A 153P
Rantanen...no question that's a great deal. He's paid well and produces.
Landeskog - The first three years of his deal he put up 145 points in 229GP. The last four he has made that a great deal.
L K said:That MacKinnon contract is a mirage. He signed it coming off a rookie contract production of:
218 GP - 59G 94A 153P
Rantanen...no question that's a great deal. He's paid well and produces.
Landeskog - The first three years of his deal he put up 145 points in 229GP. The last four he has made that a great deal.
Significantly Insignificant said:L K said:That MacKinnon contract is a mirage. He signed it coming off a rookie contract production of:
218 GP - 59G 94A 153P
Rantanen...no question that's a great deal. He's paid well and produces.
Landeskog - The first three years of his deal he put up 145 points in 229GP. The last four he has made that a great deal.
So Colorado is headed for a reckoning probably and they need to win a cup with this core while they are on these deals.
Also, after the big 4 contracts expire, is there a chance they come back with deals that are less in the next round of negotiations, or maybe at the current rate. If they haven't had success would they look at it and understand that in a cap system, if they want to win, they may need to leave something on the table, and with the amount of money they have made now, would it be easier to do that.
Marner isn't going anywhere and the core 4 is staying together for at least another year.azzurri63 said:Sick and tired of repeating the same bulls*8t every year after listening to some of these supposed stars. Time has come to deliver and they haven't done it. Will they eventually who knows. Question is how long to you wait until they deliver if they even will. Mitch in an interview today. ?Seems like it?s always kind of the same words at the end of the year, and it?s unfortunate, and it sucks.? Well maybe it's time to earn your salary.
?It?s up to [Dubas and president Brendan Shanahan] to decide what they want to do. But we all know how much talent we have, how much grit and will we play with, and we all want to win.
You have no idea what grit is Mitch.
Soaked the team for top dollars and not playing like it.
I say Dubas if he's even around needs to ship this guy out. Can't keep waiting year after year to see if they eventually wake up because my opinion that's not going to happen. Some of these guys don't have it in them and I don't think ever will and to be honest Mitch isn't the only one. Like Luke Fox said in the article William Nylander (five goals) was Toronto?s most dangerous weapon in the series. John Tavares holds a no-move clause and Auston Matthews isn?t going anywhere. So Mitch is the guy. Change the complexion of this team free up some cash so you can sign some decent players not cast-offs from other teams of players who are done. Something just something needs to change other wise we are going to be here 12 months from now complaining about the same sh*t.
mr grieves said:Colorado's got some contracts that are great for the team -- the exception. Can't compare the Leafs to that.
Tampa Bay's got some contracts that are great for the team -- the exception. Can't compare the Leafs to that.
Boston's got some contracts that are great for the team -- the exception. Can't compare the Leafs to that.
Etc.
mr grieves said:Arn said:I think it was justified to try the "four superstars" model and tinker round the edges.
I also think it is justified now to consider pivoting away from it. And as a few have said probably Marner is the most vulnerable to going.
A kay questions that comes to my mind -
Would Matthews score less without Marner? I don't think he would. But even if he did in the regular season I think it's more than balanced out by additions elsewhere in depth or in goal or wherever you can spread the $10m over say 3 positions instead of 1.
I'd be inclined to go one more season with the 4, though.
Obviously I'm pretty well convinced the Leafs won't get anywhere with 4 players taking up half their cap space (I resurrected an ancient thread to highlight the point), but I still wouldn't blow it up. I'd feel justified in expecting better results by now had the cap done what it was supposed to. I think they're in tough until that happens, as the bargain-bin depth is going to be inadequate.
Nik said:Nobody is afraid of comparisons. We just reject crying like a petulant toddler because you don't have as shiny a toy as you want as a "comparison".