First, your players will want more. Also, you can't put Horton on LTIR and save 5.3M in cap space.

They would want more on a long term, but on a bridge deal this is what theyre comparabless are, and come on that doesn't even effect anything

I dont understand LTIR. Why is that?

There is a formula that gets really complicated when you have multiple players on LTIR, but if you only have one player then you will be able to be fully relieved

In 19/20 leafs will put Horton on ltir and receive full 5.3m in relief. They will not this year because they need cap space to pay bonuses so they do not carry over, ltir will not do anything when you are under the cap.

You say that the bridge contracts for Marner and Nylander are "what their comparables are". Let me tell you why that's completely wrong.

In the last two seasons:
Auston Matthews has 132 points in 144 games (.92 PPG)
Mitch Marner has 130 points in 159 games (.82 PPG)
William Nylander has 122 points in 163 games (.75 PPG)

What you're telling me is that Matthews deserves double the Annual Salary and 5 more years than Marner & Nylander for something as minuscule as a .1 PPG difference and .17 PPG difference? You're insane to believe that.

Here are some actual comparisons for those 3 players (last 2 seasons):

William Nylander (.75 PPG) - Nikolai Ehlers (.76 PPG)
Ehlers just signed a 7-year, $42M deal ($6M AAV)

Mitch Marner (.82 PPG) - Filip Forsberg (.82 PPG)
Forsberg is currently in the middle of a 6-year, $36M deal ($6M AAV)

Auston Matthews (.92 PPG) - Leon Draisatl (.92 PPG)
Draisaitl is in year 2 of an 8-year, $68M deal ($8.5M AAV)

All 3 of Marner, Matthews, and Nylander will see AT LEAST the contract of their comparable, with the potential of earning a larger deal due to the increase in cap space.

You must have a seriously thick skull. Those are comparables but I'm talking about comparables ON bridge deals. Those are Nikita Kucherov, Ryan Johansen and Mark Stone. All those deals were 3 years at 3.5-5 mil. As you alter the term the cap hit will change. an 8 year Nylander deal would be 7 mil and Marner would be 8-9. But if it's a bridge deal it will be in the kucherov range. Stay in school and make sure you get better at site passages.

Lol. Here we go.

First, let's go ahead and explain to you what a bridge deal is since you seem to be a little confused -- Ideally, a bridge contract is a method of evaluation that a club can use to judge both the performance and the personality of a player before committing both money and term to that player. When used correctly, both team and player can benefit in the long run because the club will have had more time to become familiar with the player and the player will have been able to better establish themselves in the league and therefore be able to ask for more money.

Lets go ahead and remove both Matthews and Kucherov from this discussion, because you actually did the right thing and gave him an 8-year deal. This leaves Marner, Nylander, Johansen, and Stone.

Through their Entry-Level Contracts let's take a look at their NHL stats, shall we?

Ryan Johansen: 189 GP - 47 Goals, 49 Assists = 96 Points
Mark Stone: 103 GP - 30 Goals, 42 Points = 72 Points
Mitch Marner: 159 GP - 41 Goals, 89 Assists = 130 Points
William Nylander: 185 GP - 48 Goals, 87 Assists = 135 Points

Ryan Johansen's numbers through his ELC aren't really worthy of a long-term, big-money commitment. That's why he ended up getting a bridge deal. It gave him another few years to prove that he was worth the money that he is currently being paid. Mark Stone spent a good chunk of his ELC in the AHL with Binghamton. He did great in the time he was in the NHL, but an NHL team isn't going to commit to a long-term deal for a guy who's played just over 1 full seasons worth of games in the NHL, hence the bridge deal.

Both Nylander and Marner have spent the large majority of their ELC's at the NHL level, and both have been extremely productive at the NHL level. They don't need to further prove themselves in order to ensure a long-term contract. Johansen and Stone are actually pretty bad comparisons for these two. There's a reason guys like David Pastrnak, Tyler Seguin, Nikolai Ehlers, and Nathan MacKinnon didn't get "bridge" deals. They were good enough during their ELC's to get big contracts. Marner and Nylander have both played far too well at the NHL to sign for anything less than a 6-year deal. And neither of them are going to take 6-year deals for $4.5-5M.

You can try to act all defensive and start trying to insult me all you want (graduated college last year, btw ). Doesn't change the fact that, based on their production, you're low-balling both players and not giving them nearly enough term on their contract.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend you sweet simpleton <3

Very good points tbh however, my rationale for signing 3 year deals is to retain the player for the most rfa years possible to sign to an 8 year extension after. I'd rather have a contract expire with Marner/Nylander at 33 where there best years have been with the team rather than at 30. For a 3 year deal Nylander would still get near Kucherov money. I see what you're saying with Marner, so he would probably get around 6-7 on three years depending on next season. Another thing to consider is that these players have no leverage to dictate their term since they can't file for arbitration and GM's choose to deny that offer sheets exist. These deals also benefit both the team and the player by having the team sign the player a year before they become UFA's and the players being ble to further prove themselves like Kucherov.