Mitch Marner: what now?

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I've never heard of a single Athletic story being discussed that really interests me.

Are you sure? Not even the one where they looked at every 1st round draft pick this year and discussed the possibility of that team trading it?

 

[Kin]

I've never heard of a single Athletic story being discussed that really interests me.

Are you sure? Not even the one where they looked at every 1st round draft pick this year and discussed the possibility of that team trading it?

I don't want to yuck anyone's yum. If the Athletic does it for you, if the stuff they focus on is what you want to read, hats off. Just personally for me they represent such a departure from what I think good sports journalism is that despite the fact that they have some good folk writing about the X's and O's they're just not for me.

 

[cabber24]

Kane is a great comparable but Marner played with Tavares and teams also had to choose against matching their best against the Matthews or Tavares line. Marner is no doubt a stellar player but let's not forget how much his environment contributed to his success.

I agree.  I don't know who Kane played with. 

Dobber has Kane as primarily playing with Toews that year, with Troy Brouwer being the third wheel most of the time. That actually makes it pretty comparable to Hyman-Tavares-Marner. Especially when you figure that it means that Chicago also had another very good offensive line in Hossa-Ladd-Sharp that teams had to worry about.

and Kane won a Stanley Cup.

 

[Bender]

I've never heard of a single Athletic story being discussed that really interests me.

Are you sure? Not even the one where they looked at every 1st round draft pick this year and discussed the possibility of that team trading it?

I don't want to yuck anyone's yum. If the Athletic does it for you, if the stuff they focus on is what you want to read, hats off. Just personally for me they represent such a departure from what I think good sports journalism is that despite the fact that they have some good folk writing about the X's and O's they're just not for me.

 

[Kin]

and Kane won a Stanley Cup.

Nope. Kane signed his deal in December 2009.

 

[Kin]

I don't get the reference to Simmons.

 

[disco]

Yeah, I think we're inadvertently headed back to a Burkean future where the top six are players and the bottom 6 are plumbers.

In our case, they'll have to be literal plumbers or we won't be able to afford them.

On second thought, real plumbers are expensive.  We'll just have to fold the team.

lol! Yeah the Burkean dynamic is different this time because Kyle has actual SUPERSTARS to plug in. Burke just didn't have the horses, he did what he could with his bombastic moves but this time Dubas is mining what I would argue as his two first-overall draft picks. Auston and Marner (who could go 1st in any other year that doesn't have McDavid/Eichel in it). It's just worlds apart. Burkie had Phil and Naz/Bozie. Led to one round of fool's gold over 6 years.

Marner was picked fourth ... 

... hence the "(who could go 1st in any other year that doesn't have McDavid/Eichel in it)" in the middle of the paragraph.
My point being I consider him a 1st overall pick in talent, hence the "I would argue two 1st overall picks".

 

[Highlander]

the Dude abides, Marner or 10 over 4

 

[Highlander]

I can understand Dad and Mitch wanting the best deal, but when you wore Maple leafs pyjamas to bed all your life, why do you hold the team hostage. What really is the difference between 9 and 11 million a year?  Remember Jack Nickleson in Chinatown asking corrupt John Huston, "How much money do your actually need"? 
Yes an extra two million extra a year will make a huge difference down the road, when you play out your career, not playing on your childhood dream team, but it will make a city hate you.  Perhaps let Mitch sign an offer sheet, take the four first rounders and use the money to sign McDavid when he has so much bile in his stomach he has to come home to survive.
Perhaps we should all switch this off for a year and see what happens. Of course we won't.
thank God Matthews signed his contract without all the frikken drama.

 

[Kin]

Obviously there's no way to ever know but I really wonder how the Mathews/Marner contracts might have turned out if Tavares hadn't signed here. Maybe the same but I can't help but feel that once you establish that the big dog on this team is getting 11 million a year it's tougher to ask guys who are as good or maybe even better to take less than that.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Obviously there's no way to ever know but I really wonder how the Mathews/Marner contracts might have turned out if Tavares hadn't signed here. Maybe the same but I can't help but feel that once you establish that the big dog on this team is getting 11 million a year it's tougher to ask guys who are as good or maybe even better to take less than that.

Without JT, Marner wasn't getting 94 points so yeah a lot different. Matthews would be similar money to what he's getting. As for JT getting 11, he was a UFA and generally they get paid more then RFA's. 

 

[Kin]

Without JT, Marner wasn't getting 94 points so yeah a lot different. Matthews would be similar money to what he's getting. As for JT getting 11, he was a UFA and generally they get paid more then RFA's.

Marner scored 69 points in 16 minutes a night playing with Bozak and JVR. Between his own development, the increase in ice time and the scoring growth around the league I think it's very possible that provided he was playing with any sort of offensive talent Marner scores 85 points or so regardless of Tavares and I don't think his ask shifts much.

The difference between UFA and RFAs, I think, matters less than setting a pay scale for the team. Once you have a guy making 11, I think it becomes an ego thing for the other guys and it's more about their place on the team more than leaguewide comps.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I think JT is a little better then an extra 9 points for Mitch but we'll never know. What was very predictable going into last season was that Marner's numbers were going up large because he was going to play with JT. He did that with a lot of guys over the years.

 

[Kin]

I think JT is a little better then an extra 9 points for Mitch but we'll never know. What was very predictable going into last season was that Marner's numbers were going up large because he was going to play with JT. He did that with a lot of guys over the years.

Right but it's not just the upgrade from Bozak to Tavares, it's also the downgrade from JVR to Hyman.

 

[princedpw]

Anyway, if we are primarily talking about tools used to predict how much a player is going to make then I don't think the observation that Toronto makes more money than almost all other franchises combined is useful.

I feel like we're primarily talking about what determines a player's value, or at least how they perceive their value, and I think to that end the financial means of who they're negotiating with absolutely play a part in that.

I thought you were trying to predict how much money Marner was going to make ...

League-wide scoring was up last year.  Relative to his peers, Marner is extremely similar to Kane (relative to his peers).

Again, Kane didn't sign his deal after his third year but midway through it. Regardless though, this is a simple question. If Marner is a good comparable for Kane, and Kane signed a deal worth 11% of the cap over 5 years, is it completely unreasonable that Marner would be looking for an 8 year deal at 13.5% of the cap? Is that 2.5% the difference between reasonable and unreasonable? Given what we're seeing on the free agent market, is it unreasonable for Marner to think that he'd get 11+ million for his UFA years?

If the only thing we're doing is picking isolated cases from the past and comparing them on a pretty flimsy metric I don't think we're doing much to actually get at why players get paid what they do or how they might value themselves.

I thought we were just trying to predict what Marner?s contract is likely to be. Nothing you are saying is ?unreasonable? but I find Tulloch?s analysis more persuasive. My understanding is that agents and managers try to settle on sets of comparables (based on ?flimsy? metrics such as this one) and use those comparables to set salary.  He modeled that process and delivered a range. 

Tulloch also discusses the winger vs center debate.  It's an interesting and lengthy article.  I encourage you to sign up for the Athletic!  The reporting there is a really significant cut above any other outlet I know of.  I think you would enjoy it.  (I am not James Mirtle!)

I really wouldn't. I have no interest in the VC business model applied to the sports pages and I've never heard of a single Athletic story being discussed that really interests me.

I couldn?t care less about their business model as long as it succeeds. I simply enjoy their content.

I?m just parroting some of Tulloch?s arguments about what he thinks Marner should make. You are interested enough in these arguments to take the time to respond ... so I find it rather odd that you are so adamant that you have no interest in the source.  But that?s fine. To each his own.

 

[disco]

Heard today none of these good young RFA's have signed yet (except for Hayes?). Seems like everyone is waiting for July 1st to see if a new era has begun in this area of the contract game.

 

[Zee]

Heard today none of these good young RFA's have signed yet (except for Hayes?). Seems like everyone is waiting for July 1st to see if a new era has begun in this area of the contract game.

All the agents are trying to use as much leverage as they can it seems.  I think once one guy signs you might see a flurry of activity.

 

[herman]

Heard today none of these good young RFA's have signed yet (except for Hayes?). Seems like everyone is waiting for July 1st to see if a new era has begun in this area of the contract game.

RFAs have an opportunity to see what their league-value is come June 26th. Teams would have to blow away expectations to sign them any earlier.

 

[Kin]

I thought you were trying to predict how much money Marner was going to make ...

I am. The way players determine how to value themselves is a part of that.

I thought we were just trying to predict what Marner?s contract is likely to be. Nothing you are saying is ?unreasonable? but I find Tulloch?s analysis more persuasive.

Which is great but the process is more complicated than just choosing groups of comparables and then...what? Do you think it turns into a debate match where the side that chooses the best comparables wins over their opponents? Or do players egos come into account, both when choosing comparables and then during the negotiating process? Does it become a match of who has better data or who has more willpower? Does every contract fit seamlessly into an existing salary structure or are their outliers?

There are lots of factors that determine how players and teams arrive at their positions and then lots of other factors that determine how the situation is resolved. It just isn't as simple as boiling things down to simple metrics.

I couldn?t care less about their business model as long as it succeeds.

Well, you should. Especially if that business model dictates not only the fairly anodyne content that they put out(Can't be too controversial or political and risk the constant growth of the subscriber base!) or leads to the pretty numerous ethical lapses they've been guilty of.

You are interested enough in these arguments to take the time to respond ... so I find it rather odd that you are so adamant that you have no interest in the source.  But that?s fine. To each his own.

I'm interested in the overall discussion about Marner's contract. Admittedly, I prefer these discussions when it's people saying "Here's what I think" rather than "Here's what I read in the Athletic" but beggars can't always be choosers.