Forums/Armchair-GM

Marner

Created by: GMCM
Initial Creation Date: Jul 18, 2019
Published: Jul 19, 2019 at 12:00
Team: 2019-20 Anaheim Ducks
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
Marner, Mitchell6$9,250,000
Trades
ANA
  1. Marner, Mitchell [RFA Rights]
TOR
  1. Manson, Josh
  2. Silfverberg, Jakob
Buyouts
  • Corey Perry: $2,625,000
  • Simon Despres: $0
Retained Salary Transactions
  • Devin Shore: $759,000 (33%)
DRAFT YEARROUND 1ROUND 2ROUND 3ROUND 4ROUND 5ROUND 6ROUND 7
2020
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
2021
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
2022
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ANA
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES BONUSESCAP SPACE
25$81,500,000$67,015,590$0$2,315,000$14,484,410
Left WingCenterRight Wing
ANA
Rakell, Rickard
$3,789,444
C, RW, LW
UFA - 3
ANA
Steel, Sam
$863,333
C
RFA - 2
Marner, Mitchell
$9,250,000
RW
UFA - 6
ANA
Comtois, Maxime
$820,000
C, LW
RFA - 2
ANA
Getzlaf, Ryan
$8,250,000
C
NMC
UFA - 2
ANA
Terry, Troy
$925,000
C, RW
RFA - 1
ANA
Jones, Max
$863,333
LW
RFA - 2
ANA
Henrique, Adam
$5,825,000
C
NTC
UFA - 5
ANA
Kase, Ondrej
$2,600,000
RW
RFA - 2
ANA
Ritchie, Nick
$1,498,925
LW
RFA - 2
ANA
Rowney, Carter
$1,133,333
C, RW
UFA - 2
ANA
Sprong, Daniel
$750,000
RW
RFA - 1
ANA
Shore, Devin
$1,541,000
LW, C, RW
UFA - 1
ANA
Deslauriers, Nicolas
$950,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
ANA
Grant, Derek
$700,000
C, RW
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
ANA
Guhle, Brendan
$697,500
LD
RFA - 1
ANA
Fowler, Cam
$6,500,000
LD
NTC
UFA - 7
ANA
Gibson, John
$6,400,000
G
UFA - 8
ANA
Lindholm, Hampus
$5,205,556
LD
UFA - 3
ANA
Holzer, Korbinian
$850,000
RD
UFA - 1
ANA
Miller, Ryan
$1,125,000
G
NTC
UFA - 1
ANA
Larsson, Jacob
$894,166
LD
RFA - 1
ANA
Wideman, Chris
$700,000
RD
UFA - 1
ANA
Stolarz, Anthony
$750,000
G
UFA - 2
ANA
Del Zotto, Michael
$750,000
LD
UFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
ANA
Kesler, Ryan
$6,875,000
C, RW
NMC
UFA - 3
ANA
Eaves, Patrick
$3,150,000
RW, LW
NTC
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Jul 19, 2019 at 12:04
#1
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,829
Likes: 642
Leafs block your number
Tavahews and Sign_em_up000000 liked this.
Jul 19, 2019 at 12:06
#2
Danglenavy
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 207
Likes: 50
Quoting: TheresAlwaysNextYear
Leafs block your number


Not only that if marner would take 9.2 over 6 years that would of been signed long time ago
Jul 19, 2019 at 12:19
#3
GM - Avalanche
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 5,027
Likes: 1,094
Leafs have no interest in this trade as Marner is a franchise player and the proposed players in return are not in his league.

Every team in the league wants Marner but few have a player of equal value at his same age.
Jul 19, 2019 at 12:52
#4
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Quoting: Tavahews
Not only that if marner would take 9.2 over 6 years that would of been signed long time ago


The issue is Marner wants Matthews money based on the Leafs internal cap structure. If the Leafs make the difficult decision to move on from Marner he may sign for less based on a different teams cap structure. It would then fall on Marner to explain why we was willing to take less with another team vs signing with his home town team at the same #. I also think Dubas will make the decision to trade Marner if he is dead set on getting Matthews money.
Jul 19, 2019 at 1:54
#5
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 3,614
Likes: 2,279
Dubas counters with Rakell, Manson, Kase, Steel, Comtios, Jones, and Gibson, for Marner, Ceci, and Andersen, see I can be ridiculous too.
TheJoeMan and Tavahews liked this.
Jul 19, 2019 at 2:38
#6
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 428
Likes: 99
Quoting: bleedbluenwhite
The issue is Marner wants Matthews money based on the Leafs internal cap structure. If the Leafs make the difficult decision to move on from Marner he may sign for less based on a different teams cap structure.


This is just an insane line of thinking. If he won't sign for 9.25x6 in Toronto he won't suddenly lower his asking price by 2 million just because of what the Ducks have some of their guys making.
Jul 19, 2019 at 5:34
#7
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 426
Trading Manson would leave our D completely decimated on the right side. While the value of the OP is certainly in our favour, it's just not a trade I would entertain. We'd end up like NJ after the Hall-Larsson trade. They got the better player, but have drafted 1st OA twice since then. I think that is evidence enough that the trade didn't really pan out as they hoped it would.

Quoting: TMLSage
Leafs have no interest in this trade as Marner is a franchise player and the proposed players in return are not in his league.

Every team in the league wants Marner but few have a player of equal value at his same age.


I mean, if you're giving him away, "sure", we'll take Marner. Otherwise, we don't want or need Marner. We need scorers, not playmakers. Moreover, he is getting over-hyped at this point. The kid is good, but he's no Ovechkin.

Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
Dubas counters with Rakell, Manson, Kase, Steel, Comtios, Jones, and Gibson, for Marner, Ceci, and Andersen, see I can be ridiculous too.


I know you are just trying to make some O-T-T point, but why are we taking back Ceci and Andersen? The OP only wants Marner. FWIW, I think a deal around Rakell + Steel/Comtois + 1st is a strong offer for Marner. However, I am sure some deluded TOR fans wouldn't even entertain it, what with Marner being a generational talent and equivalent to McDavid (which he isn't).
Jul 19, 2019 at 9:43
#8
Go Wings Go
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 27,193
Likes: 5,802
laugh laugh First off not nearly enough for Marner, I wouldn't even move Larkin for that offer. And secondly you're at least $2.4 million under his asking price. He'll stay in Toronto if that's only what he gets.
Jul 19, 2019 at 11:32
#9
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 3,614
Likes: 2,279
Quoting: mytduxfan
Trading Manson would leave our D completely decimated on the right side. While the value of the OP is certainly in our favour, it's just not a trade I would entertain. We'd end up like NJ after the Hall-Larsson trade. They got the better player, but have drafted 1st OA twice since then. I think that is evidence enough that the trade didn't really pan out as they hoped it would.



I mean, if you're giving him away, "sure", we'll take Marner. Otherwise, we don't want or need Marner. We need scorers, not playmakers. Moreover, he is getting over-hyped at this point. The kid is good, but he's no Ovechkin.



I know you are just trying to make some O-T-T point, but why are we taking back Ceci and Andersen? The OP only wants Marner. FWIW, I think a deal around Rakell + Steel/Comtois + 1st is a strong offer for Marner. However, I am sure some deluded TOR fans wouldn't even entertain it, what with Marner being a generational talent and equivalent to McDavid (which he isn't).


Actually, what you proposed isn't a terrible trade idea (Rakell,Comtois/Steel,+1 for Marner) just doesn't do enough for the leafs, if we where to trade Mitch we would need a top pairing defenceman back otherwise it wouldn't be worth it for us and at that point it wouldn't be worth it for you as well. P.s. I don't think nore have I ever said Mitch Marner is a generational player, he is very good but not close to generational, just because one fan says something does not mean that all of us share the same opinion.
Jul 19, 2019 at 11:59
#10
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 426
Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
Actually, what you proposed isn't a terrible trade idea (Rakell,Comtois/Steel,+1 for Marner) just doesn't do enough for the leafs, if we where to trade Mitch we would need a top pairing defenceman back otherwise it wouldn't be worth it for us and at that point it wouldn't be worth it for you as well. P.s. I don't think nore have I ever said Mitch Marner is a generational player, he is very good but not close to generational, just because one fan says something does not mean that all of us share the same opinion.


Fine, but I don't think Marner returns a top pairing D-man. Top pairing D-men, at least good ones, are really hard to come by. Meanwhile, top pairing W are found at the top of every draft.

You may not think it, but you certainly respond to proposals for Marner as if he is a generational player. Hence the O-T-T response you gave in this thread. I mean, Marner for Silf + Manson isn't a good return or even a fair one, but it's certainly not "ridiculous" either.
Jul 19, 2019 at 12:18
#11
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 3,614
Likes: 2,279
Quoting: mytduxfan
Fine, but I don't think Marner returns a top pairing D-man. Top pairing D-men, at least good ones, are really hard to come by. Meanwhile, top pairing W are found at the top of every draft.

You may not think it, but you certainly respond to proposals for Marner as if he is a generational player. Hence the O-T-T response you gave in this thread. I mean, Marner for Silf + Manson isn't a good return or even a fair one, but it's certainly not "ridiculous" either.


Which is why he won't be traded. No i dont as I clearly stated. that is a ridiculous trade proposal which is why I went the other way, you think that my proposal is over the top, but that trade proposal is laughable, hence why I went the other way so you or original poster can understand how the leafs would view this proposal.
Jul 19, 2019 at 12:56
#12
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Quoting: Matthews34
This is just an insane line of thinking. If he won't sign for 9.25x6 in Toronto he won't suddenly lower his asking price by 2 million just because of what the Ducks have some of their guys making.


It is not that insane at all really. Marner is holding out because on the Leafs roster he believes he is worth every much as Matthews. He is using the Leafs internal cap and teammates as his comparable. This would all change if he were traded. He can ask for the Matthews deal but wouldnt get it. The new team isnt going to care about the Leafs and their cap situation. They would use there own and the league for comparables to determine his value. Making it much more likely Marner signs for less. 5x9.5-10.5 likely.
Jul 19, 2019 at 12:58
#13
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 426
Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
Which is why he won't be traded. No i dont as I clearly stated. that is a ridiculous trade proposal which is why I went the other way, you think that my proposal is over the top, but that trade proposal is laughable, hence why I went the other way so you or original poster can understand how the leafs would view this proposal.


So you don't think Marner is generational, but you think a 2nd line W + top 4 RD is a "ridiculous" offer for a 1st line W. Again, it's not a good return or even fair value, but it's certainly not "ridiculous". I don't know, Marner for Sprong + MDZ is a "ridiculous" offer. I think we can all agree that a 1st line W would return a lot more than a bottom pairing D-man and a W prospect that is yet to find a home in the NHL. I mean, where do you start with such an offer? Hence, it is "ridiculous". Meanwhile, Marner for Silf + Manson would be a poor return and probably doesn't meet TOR needs now they have Barrie and Ceci. However, in terms of pure value, it's certainly workable (I think I can tell the type of fan you are and so I'm sure the fact both players aren't <25 years old = no deal, but I'll follow through on my point). That doesn't mean TOR would consider it, but it's certainly not a "ridiculous" offer. I mean, Lindholm for Nylander + Liljegren + 1st isn't an offer I would even consider, but it's certainly not "ridiculous" and, in terms of pure value, is certainly a respectable offer for a top pairing D. However, I don't think Lindholm is generational or, at least, I don't respond to bad trade offers (unless they are completely devoid of value) as if he is.
Jul 20, 2019 at 3:17
#14
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 3,614
Likes: 2,279
Quoting: mytduxfan
So you don't think Marner is generational, but you think a 2nd line W + top 4 RD is a "ridiculous" offer for a 1st line W. Again, it's not a good return or even fair value, but it's certainly not "ridiculous". I don't know, Marner for Sprong + MDZ is a "ridiculous" offer. I think we can all agree that a 1st line W would return a lot more than a bottom pairing D-man and a W prospect that is yet to find a home in the NHL. I mean, where do you start with such an offer? Hence, it is "ridiculous". Meanwhile, Marner for Silf + Manson would be a poor return and probably doesn't meet TOR needs now they have Barrie and Ceci. However, in terms of pure value, it's certainly workable (I think I can tell the type of fan you are and so I'm sure the fact both players aren't <25 years old = no deal, but I'll follow through on my point). That doesn't mean TOR would consider it, but it's certainly not a "ridiculous" offer. I mean, Lindholm for Nylander + Liljegren + 1st isn't an offer I would even consider, but it's certainly not "ridiculous" and, in terms of pure value, is certainly a respectable offer for a top pairing D. However, I don't think Lindholm is generational or, at least, I don't respond to bad trade offers (unless they are completely devoid of value) as if he is.


What do you think about Andersen and Johnsson + a 3rd for Gibson and Jones?
Jul 20, 2019 at 3:18
#15
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 3,614
Likes: 2,279
Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
What do you think about Andersen and Johnsson + a 3rd for Gibson and Jones?


An honest question.
Jul 20, 2019 at 7:19
#16
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 426
Quoting: Sign_em_up000000
What do you think about Andersen and Johnsson + a 3rd for Gibson and Jones?


I think it's fair value. In terms of value:

Gibson >> Andersen
Jones << Johnsson

The 3rd makes up for the differences in age.

I wouldn't do that deal, as I think Gibson is a more consistent netminder and I think middle-6 W are pretty streaky and easy to come by, but it's a very fair and reasonable offer.
Sign_em_up000000 liked this.
Jul 20, 2019 at 12:26
#17
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 3,614
Likes: 2,279
Quoting: mytduxfan
I think it's fair value. In terms of value:

Gibson >> Andersen
Jones << Johnsson

The 3rd makes up for the differences in age.

I wouldn't do that deal, as I think Gibson is a more consistent netminder and I think middle-6 W are pretty streaky and easy to come by, but it's a very fair and reasonable offer.


That's what I thought thanks
mytduxfan liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll