Marner signs 6 year, $10.893mil AAV contract

[Guilt Trip]

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]

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.

Heck, even if he's as good as his reputation says he is... he's a UFA in a year. I have no idea why his name keeps getting brought up.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[rdowdall]

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.

 

[Guilt Trip]

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.

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.
I think he got into his own head and put way too much pressure on himself. I keep referring back to what O'Dog said about him last year. You don't need to prove you're a 10.5 million dollar player every shift. Just play. Marner looked like he was carrying a piano on his back at times. Leafs need to support him, Matthews and Willy going forward. Looking back, I also agree with the Bourne article I posted in another thread. I think he was burnt out and Keefe played him too much. I also think he played Hyman too much and Willy should have gotten some of his minutes with M&M. Willy wasn't going to miss on all those chances Hyman had.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1400095401307484162
It begins

 

[Bill_Berg]

https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1400095401307484162
It begins

I wonder if Darren cares at all about winning the Cup.

 

[Guilt Trip]

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.

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

 

[Chris]

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.

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.

 

[Guilt Trip]

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.

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.

I don't think there's any truth to it. Don't see it.

 

[mr grieves]

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.

I do find myself wondering about a theme that's coming up a lot throughout this and other threads as folks with my view point to the Colorados and Tampas:

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?

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.

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.

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.

I wonder if paying full value for all your stars is actually the exception here. Perhaps not an exception looking across the whole league, but an exception among those teams who are able to contend for Cups?

Individually, none of the MacKinnon, Marchand, Kucherov contracts "make sense" -- but circumstances aligned such that they happened, and the consequences for the rest of the roster are what they are. Maybe getting lucky with timing and/or personalities (desire for security, whatever) and so getting at least one star under contract at a great rate is a requirement for building a contending team under a hard and flat cap.

 

[L K]

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. 

 

[Guilt Trip]

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. 

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.

 

[rdowdall]

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.

 

[L K]

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.

They still have two years of discount Nathan Mackinnon but:
Landeskog's contract expires this year.  Cale Makar is an RFA.  Grubauer is a UFA.

That being said they get to sign their players in an environment where the cap is expected to be flat for the next few years so the contracts might be a little more team friendly in the next year or two.

 

[azzurri63]

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 do 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 Mitch. Like someone stated I believe after one of the losses and his over the glass stupidity.

?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.

 

[Guilt Trip]

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.

Marner isn't going anywhere and the core 4 is staying together for at least another year.

 

[Kin]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying you can't compare the Leafs and their contracts to other teams and theirs. We're just saying you have to compare them fairly and taking proper context into account along with the realities of negotiating under the current system. Like compare Pastrnak to Marner all you want, just do it acknowledging that when Pastrnak signed his deal it was with a resume of a 70 point season and 123 points in 172 games and when Marner signed his it was with a resume of a 94 point season and 234 points in 241 games.

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".

 

[Arn]

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.

I fully get your point, and my post was more me saying I could see why there?s an argument can be made that Marner should be the one of the 4 to be moved. It?s not even just because of how he played, it?s purely because of the numbers (in terms of salary and of course playoff point production does factor in, especially with the event being so recent and raw).

It?s probably a moot point, but I get the argument and I can see the merit/logic in it.

 

[mr grieves]

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".

I would imagine you can quote me doing that.