F50marco

Member Since
May 29, 2015
Favourite Team
Montreal Canadiens
Forum Posts
15208
Posts per Day
9.63
Forum Threads
276
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 3:58 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 1:06 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 10:57 am
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>moli92</b></div><div>Most likely a few of: Kuznetsov, Stamkos, Oreilly, Tarasenko, Johansen, Voracek, etc. Mcdavids deal probably played a small role in driving the price up too since they were on the same team and signed in the same offseason</div></div>

Kuznetsov: Older and bridge before signing big contract.
Voracek: Signed two separate contracts before getting the big one. So older.
Johansen: Older and signed bridge contract before.
Stamkos: If your talking about the 8.5M that was his UFA deal so not a comparable, If you are talking about the 7.5M that was ~6 years before Drai.... hardly a comparable.


The other two you mentioned are the interesting ones. McDavids because it drove up the market a little and Tarasenko's because he was one of the only wingers the past 10 years to get a big deal coming out of ELC.

McDavid having an effect on raising the market for Draisaitl is right. Matthews gets 11.634M so that would drive up Marner's contract should it not? And since Marner is Rantanen's comparable.......you get the picture.
Secondly for Tarasenko that was another outlier contract. Being older helps because it bought out UFA years. But irregardless of that, finding another winger before him to come out of ELC and get paid takes you back to a different NHL time and contract landscape. So if we are to use his contract you have no choice but to inflate for time passed and use as your bottom comparable.

The increase in scoring league wise isn't enough to counterbalance anything. The previous year when Rantanen put up 84 points, the league wide scoring went from 2.67 to 2.73. That is barely an uptick. You can use the 2018-19 as more of case but that it doesn't explain the year before it.

So looking at all the comparables over the past decade it appears, I think I was too deadset on a an exact number as a low starting point. I think the happy medium for a starting point would be anywhere between the 9M and 9.5M to account for inflation since the last comparables and Marner's contract being the gross overpayment of current comparables.

So simply using this:

Taraenko 2015 - 7.5M
Draisaitl 2017 - 8.5M
Rantanen 2019 - 9.5M - 10M (I think this number is actually pretty close to Marner's because of the tax variance since Colorado has one of the lowest State taxes)

I think Colorado has zero basis for comparables under 9.5M and 10M may be the high end of the spectrum considering 10M in Colorado is pretty much the Marner contract in Toronto.

I think the most important part of all of this though is what term we're talking about here. Marner's contract was high in cap and low in term. I was ok with Marner getting 10.893M but I was assuming 8 years not 6. Toronto overpaid the cap on the amount of term also.

If Rantanen gets 10M I expect him to be signed for 8 years as a minimum. Which in my mind was the Marner equivalent but on the term he should have got had he got the over payment. If we start going into the 5 years of less, its a whole different ball game.

My breakdown:
10 - 8 years
9.75M- 7 years
9.5 - 6 years
Anything in between this should not be considered
8 - 3 years I guess?
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 9:51 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>moli92</b></div><div>the reason that there arent many players that have produced as much as rantanen at a young age is because scoring has gone up league wide. 3 years ago there were under 10 players who scored at a point per game rate, compared to over 30 players last season... Young players score at a point per game pace and then try to directly compare their points to someone elses points from a time period in which scoring was way lower.

Draisaitl scored 77 points in 82 games (<em>0.94P/GP</em>) the season before his 8.5M deal (11.33% of cap at the time) kicked in. <strong>That placed him 10th in the entire league in points per game</strong> (among players who played more than 30 games).

Rantanen scored 87 points in 74 games (<em>1.18P/GP</em>) last season. <strong>That placed him 12th in the entire league in points per game</strong> (among players who played more than 30 games).

Rantanen can argue that he is way better than Draisaitl by taking points per game completely out of context and comparing 1.18 to 0.94 directly, but if you put it in context they are very similar. If you adjust for the increase in scoring I think Draisaitl's deal is very comparable for Rantanen. Drai's 11.33% of the cap translates to 9.23M.

Draisaitl's deal isnt a lowball for Rantanen. Its right on the money.</div></div>

Just curious, what was Draisaitl's argument when he got his contract? How was he able to get 8.5M a year? What was his comparable at the time?
Forum: NHLFri at 9:18 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>hanson493</b></div><div>Not that you asked for it but here's my opinion on why Rfa's typically arent paid premier wages. One, how many 19-23 year olds were coming into the league putting up top line numbers from recent history? I think the hard cap's existence and the fact that guys cant hit UFA until 26/27 (dumb for the players at this point) puts the teams in serious control. most prospects dont get to slot into top lines and put up 60 points their rookie year. They arent being counted on. Take tampa bay for example. they signed stamkos kucherov, palat, johnsson, killorn, had callahan etc. not much room for VETERAN presence after that because they overpaid some guys to stay on. This forced the team to use point before they would like and sped up his pay process. Think about it this way, if they didnt need the low money, elc type contract on the team to begin with he doesnt get his shot and he stays a prospect in their system UNTIL UFA status. This crop of free agents was really good really early in their career alot of that is due to the way the cap is structured.

<strong>Why paying Rfa's vs Ufa's is such an issue: Its simple, it becomes history vs projection. With a UFA 9 times out of 10 you know what you are getting from the player when he hits his first UFA window. you have 6+ years of progression to know what he is capable of. with RFA you are limited to 2 sometimes 3 before that big payday arrives. Would you rather have 3 years of data to see which year may be an outlier or have 6 years of data. </strong>I think toronto is a unique situation, not the norm. most teams arent putting their young guys on top lines at 19/20 years old. they were very fortunate to have drafted 3 immediate top 6 players but that isnt the norm at all but an extreme rarity.</div></div>

Thanks. I'll just retort the highlighted part.

Agreed. Experience trumps a lot but think about it for a sec.....how often are UFA's earning their contracts there afterwards? How often are players in their 22-28 earning an hypothetical equal contract had they got one?

There is no doubting the empirical data. On average, players best seasons are in the their 20's. Not 30's. So why would you pay the most money to the players after they've given the best years of their career already? That's why it comes down paying potential vs paying past accomplishments. In the case of Marner for example, its not like they are handing him 10M because he was the 4th OV pick in his draft and he was good in junior. He showed for 3 straight years he was elite. Clear progression every year and all within the ages where players are the most inexperienced.

SJ just gave Karlsson, an amazing player 11.5M that will take him till 37. Is that more justified? Karlsson will not be able to produce 70+ points and play 25 mins a night at 35 more than likely will he? Why is that ok, yet Marner for example a player only going to get better and has proven enough to make anyone think that he should continue to improve as he enters his prime years.

One ideology is considered safe and one is risky but when you look at the data, is it really? Seems paying a UFA, market value is what is more risky than paying a player into his late 30's.
Forum: NHLFri at 3:28 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Well said Marco. If it's a new trend to pay/overpay RFAs, then the Leafs are ahead of the trend. Maybe they shouldn't have been trendsetters though. Best players getting the most money...nothing wrong with that really, it's the reality change that so many folks have hard grasping immediately.

Conversing hae we seen UFAs not getting paid/overpaid because of past performance. Gardiner getting "just" 4m X 4. Maybe that is a new trend also.</div></div>

I wouldn't say ahead of the trend as they are basically the ones being "punished" first for it and won't be better for worse necessarily as time goes on but one thing is for sure, everyone in the future will be in the same boat. That's the key. This isn't a Toronto or Colorado or Tampa bay problem. It'll be an NHL problem going forward. I say problem but it may turn out to be not that much of a problem in the long run. More of a changing of the guard regarding paying players what w think they are worth right now, in the future and based on past production.

As for Gardiner, i think his injury had more to do with anything but even if we exclude him. Teams are starting to pay attention to the changing of the guard and NOT paying players those big fat contracts that take them into their late 30's anymore. This change wont happen over night either but I predict that in two years time, UFA's won;t be getting 8 year contracts anymore and RFA's will unanimously be getting paid for their potential and not so much just their ELC production.
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 2:52 pm
Forum: NHLFri at 2:44 pm
The real answer is "never" but we all know, the choice isn't always as easy as saying it. So lets dig deeper.

We all know their most productive years are generally behind them when they are UFA's (depends on age of when they sign but lets assume 28-29 is the avg age for UFA)

The assumption is that Marner is getting paid too much, right? (I agree btw) So assume he puts up 90 points every year until the end of his contract. Would he be worth the equivalent of his current over payment he is getting now when he is 29 on the open market? Wouldn't you want to pay the player for his potential not his past pedigree knowing that he probably won't be able to put up 90+ points every of his new contract? Of course, there is always the chance Marner is a 60 point guy the rest of his contract but in all realness, what are the odds he puts up less numbers from 23-29 than he would from 29-35?

How many UFA's who signed contracts that take them into their 30's are worth their contracts in those years? Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane, right? What about Kopitar? Getzlaf? Parise? How much of these guys current contracts have they been earning in their current contracts? 1-2 maybe a 3rd year? Take away the few outliers, the overwhelming rest start to be "not worth" their contract around 32 years old.

I understand this is the way things have been for the past whatever amount of years so we've been trained to laugh at the idea of paying a player asking for UFA money right away but doesn't it make sense (coming from a completely impartial spectator who values players negotiating rights and GM's ability to roster a competitive team equally) especially with players you are virtually certain are going to put up good numbers, to pay them when they are in their prime and NOT into their 30's? Does anyone seriously think Rantanen, Marner, Point are all going to return to the 60-70 point range and everything prior was a fluke?

Why would anyone want to pay Marner X% of cap at 29 but not at 22? Based purely on history, he should produce his best during the 22-28 years, not the 29-35 years. So what is it?

In a perfect world where players are paid on a yearly basis based solely on production that past year, wouldn't one assume the best years to feel like you have to pay a player a lot, would be the years when they are statistically going to be giving you the best years of their careers?

I think the NHL is changing its philosophy around player contracts. Moving away from the "past pedigree" contracts to the "future potential" contracts. I think the most undeniable thing about this is that it effects the newest wave of teams players like this the most and its what causes the riff with fans the most. They see Pastrnak signing for 6M and say "hey why not our guy too?".
Using players contracts from 2-4 years ago as comparison is no longer valid with players because the change to this mentality has been rather sudden. Pretty much the day Matthews signed his contract. It changed every other RFA's idea of their evaluation of contracts going forward. Anything before is slightly hard to compare against now in the future where as the previous change was stretched out over a longer period of time.

What I find confusing is based on the current mentality, Marner should have signed anywhere from 8.5-9.5M x 7-8 year contract, right. Then when he becomes a UFA at 28-29 he would be able to get that even bigger contract on the open market. Except, who here wants to sign Marner when he is 29 based on the 7-8 past years of 90+ points? Not the Leafs probably, right? I can already hear Leafs fans saying let him go to free agency where someone will be stupid enough to pay him his big contract. So.... Leafs are stupid for paying Marner now but whoever pays for him in the future is just as stupid? Its never a time to pay a player essentially.
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 1:17 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 1:14 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>moli92</b></div><div>tbh i dont really like the kuch comparable so idk why you brought that up cause its a different situation (kuch was older and was comping off of a bridge deal, plus different tax rates), but if you take out marners complete overpayment and look at Aho, Draisaitl, Kuznetsov, etc you will see that they all signed for 10.37%, 11.33%, and 10.4% of the cap. all of these players were at or near a point per game pace before they signed their deals (and Drai and Kuz did that in a time before scoring went up). last season over 30 players were at or over a point per game which accounts for the difference in offensive production. If we average out the cap hit % from that group its 10.7%, which would give an AAV of 8.72M. Even if we use the higher % of cap from that group and use 11.33% of 81.5M we get 9.23M AAV. Nowhere near Marners absurd overpayment of 10.893M (13.37% of the cap)

plus on top of that Aho, Drai, and Kuz are all centres which are paid more than wingers in general too. just goes to show how bad marners deal really is</div></div>

Kucherov was mentioned above. Simply used it as a reference.

You can't pick and choose your comparables. Do we not agree players use other players contracts as justification? If Marner was worth 10M to Toronto, Keller is worth 7.15M to Arizona, Meier 6M to San Jose, Rantanen has the right to believe he is worth in the 10M range based on his production in comparsion to those players.

And I get the fact that wingers generally make less than centers but there is a limit to that. Panarin, Ovechkin, Kane, Benn, Stone are all examples of wingers getting paid more than some centers of equal scoring prowess despite a less hard position to play.

Im not saying Colorado HAS to pay Rantanen, in fact they would be wise to wait for Point and Tkachuk to get done to hopefully bring down those comparable numbers. But you can't argue Marner isn't a comparable right now. Being overpaid is not factor of being comparable or not. Production/age/line mates/etc is.

Marne's contract gave more leverage to the other RFA's whether you like it or not. Whether those teams have accept that is their choice. They can say no if they want.