Mitch Marner: what now?

[Bullfrog]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

 

[Redleaf]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

I'm not so sure that's true. I think a lot of these deals are actually pretty in-line historically with what we've seen from top tier younger players on their second deals.

The Matthews deal, for instance, is a five year deal worth 14.63% of the cap. Evgeni Malkin got a five year deal for his second contract worth 15.34% of the cap. Dion Phaneuf got a six year deal as his second contract worth the modern equivalent of 10.5 million AAV a year. If Marner wants a five year deal worth 11 million per year, it still wouldn't be as high a % of the cap that Rick Nash got on his five year second contract. McDavid's second deal was less % wise than Crosby's and McDavid signed away three UFA years.

I could go on. I'm not sure I see a big shift.

I don't think there's a big shift either. I just think that Leaf fans are suddenly aware of what signing a top notch RFA feels like. Leaf fans had not been in this position before Nylander.

Yep. Our pain generally originated from watching sub-par players sign average contracts year after year, while the team sat in never ending mediocrity. I'm sure we can all agree watching super star players holding out for a few months before signing their contracts a drastic drop on the pain-o-meter of being a Maple Leafs fan. 

 

[disco]

Yeah, 1st world problems. Cap hell is when you've got fat contracts on the books by guys who are too old and/or not producing to that level. Leafs are in a good spot were their value on money spent can be at a very high percentage (young star core players and JT).

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

I'm not so sure that's true. I think a lot of these deals are actually pretty in-line historically with what we've seen from top tier younger players on their second deals.

The Matthews deal, for instance, is a five year deal worth 14.63% of the cap. Evgeni Malkin got a five year deal for his second contract worth 15.34% of the cap. Dion Phaneuf got a six year deal as his second contract worth the modern equivalent of 10.5 million AAV a year. If Marner wants a five year deal worth 11 million per year, it still wouldn't be as high a % of the cap that Rick Nash got on his five year second contract. McDavid's second deal was less % wise than Crosby's and McDavid signed away three UFA years.

I could go on. I'm not sure I see a big shift.

I don't think there's a big shift either. I just think that Leaf fans are suddenly aware of what signing a top notch RFA feels like. Leaf fans had not been in this position before Nylander.

Yep. Our pain generally originated from watching sub-par players sign average contracts year after year, while the team sat in never ending mediocrity. I'm sure we can all agree watching super star players holding out for a few months before signing their contracts a drastic drop on the pain-o-meter of being a Maple Leafs fan.

And exactly why Marner should get $11.616M a year and Dubas should cut the crap.  Dubas did a lot of good this off season but giving Ceci $4.5M is ludicrous. 

 

[Strangelove]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

To your second point, at least historically, there has been a material difference between the contracts of RFAs and UFAs. The former are not allowed to openly tender their services on the NHL free agent market, so they don't get paid as much as they otherwise could if they were free agents. Again, Marner can demand whatever he wants, but I don't think Dubas should be feel obligated to pay him more because he and other RFAs have decided that they want more.

As an aside, is 11 million dollars on a short-term deal really the going rate for 80 point wingers (with limited physical and defensive upside) these days?

 

[Zee]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

To your second point, at least historically, there has been a material difference between the contracts of RFAs and UFAs. The former are not allowed to openly tender their services on the NHL free agent market, so they don't get paid as much as they otherwise could if they were free agents. Again, Marner can demand whatever he wants, but I don't think Dubas should be feel obligated to pay him more because he and other RFAs have decided that they want more.

As an aside, is 11 million dollars on a short-term deal really the going rate for 80 point wingers (with limited physical and defensive upside) these days?

For me, Patrick Kane is a comparable to Marner, in Kane's 2nd contract he took 11.09% of the cap which in Marner's case would be $9.03M against today's cap.  That was also for 5 years.

 

[Strangelove]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

To your second point, at least historically, there has been a material difference between the contracts of RFAs and UFAs. The former are not allowed to openly tender their services on the NHL free agent market, so they don't get paid as much as they otherwise could if they were free agents. Again, Marner can demand whatever he wants, but I don't think Dubas should be feel obligated to pay him more because he and other RFAs have decided that they want more.

As an aside, is 11 million dollars on a short-term deal really the going rate for 80 point wingers (with limited physical and defensive upside) these days?

For me, Patrick Kane is a comparable to Marner, in Kane's 2nd contract he took 11.09% of the cap which in Marner's case would be $9.03M against today's cap.  That was also for 5 years.

Works for me. Don't think it works for Marner.

 

[Zee]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

To your second point, at least historically, there has been a material difference between the contracts of RFAs and UFAs. The former are not allowed to openly tender their services on the NHL free agent market, so they don't get paid as much as they otherwise could if they were free agents. Again, Marner can demand whatever he wants, but I don't think Dubas should be feel obligated to pay him more because he and other RFAs have decided that they want more.

As an aside, is 11 million dollars on a short-term deal really the going rate for 80 point wingers (with limited physical and defensive upside) these days?

For me, Patrick Kane is a comparable to Marner, in Kane's 2nd contract he took 11.09% of the cap which in Marner's case would be $9.03M against today's cap.  That was also for 5 years.

Works for me. Don't think it works for Marner.

They're pretty similar in points in the first 3 years, I know scoring was different all those years ago but in the first 3 seasons Kane had 230 points, Marner 224.  Marner missed 5 games, Kane missed 2.

 

[princedpw]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

I'm not so sure that's true. I think a lot of these deals are actually pretty in-line historically with what we've seen from top tier younger players on their second deals.

The Matthews deal, for instance, is a five year deal worth 14.63% of the cap. Evgeni Malkin got a five year deal for his second contract worth 15.34% of the cap. Dion Phaneuf got a six year deal as his second contract worth the modern equivalent of 10.5 million AAV a year. If Marner wants a five year deal worth 11 million per year, it still wouldn't be as high a % of the cap that Rick Nash got on his five year second contract. McDavid's second deal was less % wise than Crosby's and McDavid signed away three UFA years.

I could go on. I'm not sure I see a big shift.

I don't think there's a big shift either. I just think that Leaf fans are suddenly aware of what signing a top notch RFA feels like. Leaf fans had not been in this position before Nylander.

Yep. Our pain generally originated from watching sub-par players sign average contracts year after year, while the team sat in never ending mediocrity. I'm sure we can all agree watching super star players holding out for a few months before signing their contracts a drastic drop on the pain-o-meter of being a Maple Leafs fan.

And exactly why Marner should get $11.616M a year and Dubas should cut the crap.  Dubas did a lot of good this off season but giving Ceci $4.5M is ludicrous.

If our only complaint with Dubas is that he gave out a single bad contract and that contract is 1 year long and given to a player in our position of greatest need  then I think our GM is doing really, really well.  Look around the league and you'll find almost every other team has many more burdensome contracts. 

Tampa has the amazing top-end discounts but also has guys like Alex Killorn, Ondrej Pillat --- they are good players (35-45 points) --- but they are making 4.5-5.5 million whereas the leafs equivalent (Johnsson, Kapanen) are wrapped up for 3.5 million. 

 

[Redleaf]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

To your second point, at least historically, there has been a material difference between the contracts of RFAs and UFAs. The former are not allowed to openly tender their services on the NHL free agent market, so they don't get paid as much as they otherwise could if they were free agents. Again, Marner can demand whatever he wants, but I don't think Dubas should be feel obligated to pay him more because he and other RFAs have decided that they want more.

As an aside, is 11 million dollars on a short-term deal really the going rate for 80 point wingers (with limited physical and defensive upside) these days?

For me, Patrick Kane is a comparable to Marner, in Kane's 2nd contract he took 11.09% of the cap which in Marner's case would be $9.03M against today's cap.  That was also for 5 years.

Thats a nice comparable. I wonder if Dubas has tried that one out in negotiations yet.

 

[Bates]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

To your second point, at least historically, there has been a material difference between the contracts of RFAs and UFAs. The former are not allowed to openly tender their services on the NHL free agent market, so they don't get paid as much as they otherwise could if they were free agents. Again, Marner can demand whatever he wants, but I don't think Dubas should be feel obligated to pay him more because he and other RFAs have decided that they want more.

As an aside, is 11 million dollars on a short-term deal really the going rate for 80 point wingers (with limited physical and defensive upside) these days?

For me, Patrick Kane is a comparable to Marner, in Kane's 2nd contract he took 11.09% of the cap which in Marner's case would be $9.03M against today's cap.  That was also for 5 years.

Thats a nice comparable. I wonder if Dubas has tried that one out in negotiations yet.

Paul said there is only one acceptable comparable  and no others will be entertained.

 

[Bullfrog]

For me, the annoying part is the trend of kids demanding an ever-increasing portion of the cap before free agency. This wasn't really a thing even a few years ago.

Mitch is well within his rights to demand whatever he wants but I wouldn't be surprised if GMs start to push back a little more forcefully, even if that means a good player or two have to sit out a year. The numbers simply don't add up in a salary cap system, especially when kids not only want to get paid like superstar free agents but also want short-term deals.

I hope Dubas has a reasonable final offer on the table (with term) well in advance of the season and then doesn't budge.

But Marner IS a superstar free agent; why wouldn't he get paid as one?

He scored 94 points last season. Let's assume he regresses to be an 80 point player. Why should he get any less than other 80 point players because he's young?

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

To your second point, at least historically, there has been a material difference between the contracts of RFAs and UFAs. The former are not allowed to openly tender their services on the NHL free agent market, so they don't get paid as much as they otherwise could if they were free agents. Again, Marner can demand whatever he wants, but I don't think Dubas should be feel obligated to pay him more because he and other RFAs have decided that they want more.

As an aside, is 11 million dollars on a short-term deal really the going rate for 80 point wingers (with limited physical and defensive upside) these days?

I haven't suggested $11M on a short-term deal is the going rate for 80 point wingers. I'm not sure what you mean by limited defensive upside; I'd say Marner's got lots of upside there given his high hockey IQ.

 

[Kin]

To the superstar point, I guess I don't see Marner being on the level of the players cited by Nik. In what universe are Marner's comparables Crosby, Malkin or McDavid, rather than (say) Sebastian Aho?

Just to be clear, the guy I directly compared to Marner was Rick Nash who got a 5 year deal worth 13.85% of the Cap after scoring 150 points in 208 games his first three years.

Another example would be Thomas Vanek whose second deal was 7 years at 14% of the cap. Ilya Kovalchuk got a whopping 16.41% of the cap on a 5 year deal in the very first year of the cap.

 

[Kin]

For me, Patrick Kane is a comparable to Marner, in Kane's 2nd contract he took 11.09% of the cap which in Marner's case would be $9.03M against today's cap.  That was also for 5 years.

This comparison has been brought up before re: Marner and as always it's important to remember that Chicago signed Kane to that deal before Kane had actually played out that third season. Kane wasn't negotiating with Chicago as the guy who'd just scored 88 points.

 

[Bates]

For me, Patrick Kane is a comparable to Marner, in Kane's 2nd contract he took 11.09% of the cap which in Marner's case would be $9.03M against today's cap.  That was also for 5 years.

This comparison has been brought up before re: Marner and as always it's important to remember that Chicago signed Kane to that deal before Kane had actually played out that third season. Kane wasn't negotiating with Chicago as the guy who'd just scored 88 points.

It's possible Chicago valued more than points(Cups) and they had a very good indication of where Kane was headed after first month of season.

 

[Average Joes]

Kane had 28 points in 22 games in the playoffs the year he was signed to the extension.  He was a big part of that cup win. Does that not have significant value compared to regular season points?   

Nash was a goal scoring beast leading the NHL in his second year.  Not so much on points though. I find Kane the better comparable with their more similar point structure. 

 

[Kin]

Kane had 28 points in 22 games in the playoffs the year he was signed to the extension.  He was a big part of that cup win. Does that not have significant value compared to regular season points?   

Well, no. He signed the deal in December of 2009. The Blackhawks won the cup, and Kane got those 28 points in 22 games, in the spring of 2010.

Which, again, speaks to what I'm saying. If Kane had waited to sign his second contract until after his third year, he probably would have been able to ask for and get more armed with a better regular season and a cup. This is true with a lot of guys who sign extensions after their second years(not so much the cup part as the growth in the third year part. A lot of guys we think of as having signed really good value 2nd contracts signed them after their 2nd seasons instead of their 3rd. Tavares is a good example).

 

[Kin]

And for reference's sake when Kane signed his deal he had 14 points in 16 career playoff games. Marner has 17 points in 20 career playoff games. So it's more or less identical in that respect.

 

[Average Joes]

Kane had 28 points in 22 games in the playoffs the year he was signed to the extension.  He was a big part of that cup win. Does that not have significant value compared to regular season points?   

Well, no. He signed the deal in December of 2009. The Blackhawks won the cup, and Kane got those 28 points in 22 games, in the spring of 2010.

Which, again, speaks to what I'm saying. If Kane had waited to sign his second contract until after his third year, he probably would have been able to ask for and get more armed with a better regular season and a cup. This is true with a lot of guys who sign extensions after their second years(not so much the cup part as the growth in the third year part. A lot of guys we think of as having signed really good value 2nd contracts signed them after their 2nd seasons instead of their 3rd. Tavares is a good example).

Your right.  My apologies. 

Kane was also more interesting than Marner due to those criminal charges he had with the cab driver.

 

[Kin]

Kane was also more interesting than Marner due to those criminal charges he had with the cab driver.

I actually think there are some pretty interesting parallels between Kane and Marner. Kane was negotiating his extension the year after his team had signed a big deal free agent and negotiating it alongside the team's other top young player, a C who was arguably more valuable and who, while not producing as many points, had scored significantly more goals in fewer games.

Thing is, Kane's deal had a higher AAV than Hossa's(admittedly due to those dodgy backdiving deals) and was exactly equal to the deal they gave Toews. So from strictly an ego stroking point of view, as opposed to just dollars and cents or cap %, Chicago's offer maybe had more appeal.