Mitch Marner: what now?

[Kin]

I would imagine there has to be a dollar value line, that once crossed the Leafs aren't willing to match.

I'm sure there is. I'm just not sure it's a decision that ultimately results in a better team than the one with Marner on it.

 

[pmrules]

This is bonkers territory for Mitch.  No way is he worth that.  If someone else is willing to pay, then go enjoy being irrelevant in another market Mitch. 

 

[Frank E]

This is bonkers territory for Mitch.  No way is he worth that.  If someone else is willing to pay, then go enjoy being irrelevant in another market Mitch.

Let me say that I think that the report is horseshit, but I'll be the first to say that I wouldn't blame Mitch Marner one bit for signing that crazy deal. 

 

[Guilt Trip]

When you're up against the cap it makes a huge difference. All things being equal and say the Leafs are 1.5 over means a roster player making that over an ELC would have to go. In the Leafs case, Hyman would have to go because Brown's contract wouldn't cover it. If not that route, then you trade a Kappy, Johnsson, Kadri which in turn makes your team weaker. So while it can be done, generally GMs don't look to make their teams weaker.

But the equation is having Marner vs. not having Marner and there's not a single guy you named whose absence would hurt the team more than Marner.

That's not the point because at 15mill you could say that. The team will be weaker with him at 13 mill then it would be with him at 11 mill.

 

[Kin]

That's not the point because at 15mill you could say that. The team will be weaker with him at 13 mill then it would be with him at 11 mill.

But you can say that about any player at any price. It's better, within the confines of the cap, for every player to be cheaper.

The question though is at what point does it become a smart decision to let a player walk away. Like I said, if a player makes your team better at 11.5, I don't think the extra 1.5 million to 13 represents such a shift that your team is better off without them at all regardless of your cap situation. Could you then say the same thing about a player at 15? Yeah, maybe. But part of that is just reckoning with the reality that star players in the NHL are drastically, drastically underpaid.

 

[Bates]

That's not the point because at 15mill you could say that. The team will be weaker with him at 13 mill then it would be with him at 11 mill.

But you can say that about any player at any price. It's better, within the confines of the cap, for every player to be cheaper.

The question though is at what point does it become a smart decision to let a player walk away. Like I said, if a player makes your team better at 11.5, I don't think the extra 1.5 million to 13 represents such a shift that your team is better off without them at all regardless of your cap situation. Could you then say the same thing about a player at 15? Yeah, maybe. But part of that is just reckoning with the reality that star players in the NHL are drastically, drastically underpaid.

Is the question not is your team better with Mitch at 13 or better with another good winger at 9 or 10 with 4 first round picks? At 13 I take my chances with the Cap Space and the 4 firsts. Heck I take that chance at anything above 11.

 

[Chris]

$13 or $14M for Marner? I'll believe it when I see it. If it comes to that, hopefully we can sign someone else (like Panarin) for a more reasonable amount and use the extra for another position of need (we do need a defense, after all). And the picks will be icing on the cake.

The big risk is that we let Marner go and aren't able to sign a really good player to take his spot.

 

[Kin]

Is the question not is your team better with Mitch at 13 or better with another good winger at 9 or 10 with 4 first round picks?

Sort of, but that's very much a bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush sort of scenario. We know that the UFA market not only tends to be a horrifically inefficient use of cap dollars but that's even in the event that you can convince someone to take them.

So if the question is Marner at 13 vs. the hypothetical really good value UFA at 9 or 10 and draft picks, I still would tend towards the actual tangible asset.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Is the question not is your team better with Mitch at 13 or better with another good winger at 9 or 10 with 4 first round picks?

Sort of, but that's very much a bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush sort of scenario. We know that the UFA market not only tends to be a horrifically inefficient use of cap dollars but that's even in the event that you can convince someone to take them.

So if the question is Marner at 13 vs. the hypothetical really good value UFA at 9 or 10 and draft picks, I still would tend towards the actual tangible asset.

I wouldn't just look at the UFA market. I would look at the trade route also. You have 4 1st. Tell me you couldn't get a package together to entice CBJ to trade Jones, or St Louis to trade Parayko? You hit them with a deal they can't pass on and if that deal worked out, you'd still have cap space left. There's a point where you just have to walk away. Yeah the team will be weaker up front without him, but you could potentially shore up the D side of things.

 

[Bates]

Is the question not is your team better with Mitch at 13 or better with another good winger at 9 or 10 with 4 first round picks?

Sort of, but that's very much a bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush sort of scenario. We know that the UFA market not only tends to be a horrifically inefficient use of cap dollars but that's even in the event that you can convince someone to take them.

So if the question is Marner at 13 vs. the hypothetical really good value UFA at 9 or 10 and draft picks, I still would tend towards the actual tangible asset.

With the dollars being mentioned I'm very confident we can sign 75% of Marner for $9 million or less riding shotgun for Tavares. In this case at the rumoured dollars It's the RFA market that looks very inefficient.

 

[Kin]

I wouldn't just look at the UFA market. I would look at the trade route also. You have 4 1st. Tell me you couldn't get a package together to entice CBJ to trade Jones, or St Louis to trade Parayko?

I doubt it,  I don't see either team as having a desire to move on from either guy, but regardless we're still talking about these wild hypotheticals. What is the package the Leafs could put together for either guy that was so good that neither team could pass on yet still represented good value for the Leafs? To me, that's almost inherently contradictory.

 

[Kin]

With the dollars being mentioned I'm very confident we can sign 75% of Marner for $9 million or less riding shotgun for Tavares.

Which players on the UFA market do you think represent 75% of Marner?

 

[Bates]

The Leafs are presently a very top heavy team with suspect defence. Add Marner at 11 plus and that gets worse rather than better. Take 4 firsts and use that 11 plus million to slightly improve the whole lineup and the Leafs are a better team. 1st line is slightly worse, 3rd line could be much better and D improved.

 

[louisstamos]

If Marner does leave though, and the Leafs need a replacement, I heard Phil Kessel can be had from Pittsburgh for relatively cheap.

 

[pmrules]

$13 or $14M for Marner? I'll believe it when I see it. If it comes to that, hopefully we can sign someone else (like Panarin) for a more reasonable amount and use the extra for another position of need (we do need a defense, after all). And the picks will be icing on the cake.

The big risk is that we let Marner go and aren't able to sign a really good player to take his spot.

In this hypothetical world, if Marner signs for $13M, Panarin or equivalent won?t be signing for $9M.

 

[Bates]

With the dollars being mentioned I'm very confident we can sign 75% of Marner for $9 million or less riding shotgun for Tavares.

Which players on the UFA market do you think represent 75% of Marner?

Pavelski, Duchene, Nyquist, Dzingel, Lee,  and possible trade scenarios like Hoffman.  Many options out there. 

 

[Kin]

Pavelski, Duchene, Nyquist, Dzingel, Lee,  and possible trade scenarios like Hoffman.  Many options out there.

Yeah, we may just have a fundamental difference in opinion as to Marner's worth.

 

[Chris]

$13 or $14M for Marner? I'll believe it when I see it. If it comes to that, hopefully we can sign someone else (like Panarin) for a more reasonable amount and use the extra for another position of need (we do need a defense, after all). And the picks will be icing on the cake.

The big risk is that we let Marner go and aren't able to sign a really good player to take his spot.

In this hypothetical world, if Marner signs for $13M, Panarin or equivalent won?t be signing for $9M.

Maybe not, but Panarin+4 first rounders > Marner

 

[Bates]

Pavelski, Duchene, Nyquist, Dzingel, Lee,  and possible trade scenarios like Hoffman.  Many options out there.

Yeah, we may just have a fundamental difference in opinion as to Marner's worth.

90 point winger with great center. I think most if those guys produce 70 plus in same situation.

 

[Kin]

90 point winger with great center. I think most if those guys produce 70 plus in same situation.

Lee literally played three seasons with the exact same C and never approached 70 points.