Why does Marner sign for less years AND less money than he wants?

Not OP but,
Have you heard the term bridge deal?

Yes, I think you've mistaken what a bridge deal is. It's not where they take less term and less money so they can prove something they've already proved.

Have you heard of the term "team friendly deal that would never ever happen".

I mean, Matthews offered Dubas 3@9 and Dubas declined so...

It's all about timing... you've waited too long on Marner. He has all the leverage in the world.

That's interesting. Any source?

He is an RFA with no rights.
He literally has no leverage, it is by design.

I mean, that’s literally what a bridge deal is.

As for the post, my big beef is with the Minnesota deal. Basically the only things that have any value are kap, liljigren, and the 2nd. That doesn’t get you spurgeon with retained salary, and Minnesota is giving up more? Cmon. Don’t get me started on Marleau

Believe that was CJ on the SDP

Dubas should have taken that

He’s not group 1. He has offer sheet rights. It’s not much, but that’s some leverage

If you wanted to bridge Marner, it should have been a year ago. Sure, he doesn't have arb rights, neither did Nylander. You have a landscape in the NHL right now that is more primed for an offer sheet than ever before. I'd be very careful in playing hardball with Marner.

Knowing Matthews, he'd be a 15 million dollar player in 3 years with cap inflation easily.
Dubas is trying to get a long term window open, the 5 year deal does that much better (especially with the cap crunch hurting our chances next year).

A post titled "Blockbuster with Wild" and NINE count'em NINE comments about an RFA signing.

Does anybody want to comment about the purpose of the post, for chrissakes?!?

Edit: by the time I hit "send," the number had become 13.

True, but offersheets never happen for a reason.
Remember that these GM's have to work together, and if they are renting barns to fight in...

no

Can you elaborate on those abbreviations I can't figure out what those mean lol

Chris Johnson of Sportsnet on the Steve Dangle podcast

Not enough to Minny if Zatisev is included.

Haha yes, that is true.

I still think treating Marner as if he has no leverage is silly. He can get 7 x 12 next season on the open market. I can't imagine he has any interest in signing a bridge deal. He's going to want a lockout protected long term deal. All I've heard from his camp is that he has no interest in leaving money on the table, nor should he - Matthews and Nylander didn't, why should he.

Sure, but a 3 year deal keeps things much more manageable for the short term. I would be focusing on a shorter term window while Tavares is still relatively young, and Reilly is on his steal of a contract. Let him be an RFA in 3 years, get the 8 year deal until he's 32, and then let the kid walk when he's likely about to start declining. You probably go through a slight retool in those first two years after the 3 year deal, but I think that gives the leafs a better chance to win the cup. The 5 yaer deal gives them a bigger window to have a good chance, but still have some issues. Just my two cents.

ya, they never happen because the chicken sh*t GMs cave and give into the players demands. Virtually always.

Two 60 point seasons then we get him a new star cdntre and he explodes for 90... there just may be something to prove there.

I don’t think the bridge deal is a good idea for management but marner could really cash in. I think he wants a longer term deal.

Remember when we heard Nylander wanted Pastranak money and everyone laughed cause he had no leverage?

No one is dumb enough to overpay Marner that much.