Speculation: NSH interested in Marner

[belair]

You said the issue was defense and goaltending when that hasn't been an issue for years. The Leafs lost because they couldn't score more than 2 goals a game. End of discussion. Had nothing to do with what you said. 4% PP.

If you even watched the series, the Leafs were absolutely lights out defensively. Suffocated the Bruins especially end of the series. Held them to 1 shot in back to back elimination games in the first period. Lost game 7 by 1 goal in OT.

There is not a team out there who is winning the cup winning every game 2-1 no matter how elite they are defensively. Sure they need to be able to win some games that way (and the Leafs do as well), but not every single game. The margin for error is too thin.

Leafs failure is having 50% of the cap being in offensive talent and the past several seasons the offense has been the weak link.

I watched every game of that series. What I'm saying is that the Bruins series wasn't an accurate representation of what the Leafs would have had to overcome to win the next three rounds. Those other opponents would have feasted on the weaker matchups that Toronto defense, their goaltending and their depth offered up.

Is the Leafs' top end offense underperforming in the playoffs a key issue? Sure. But they had a game won by an elite Matthews game in that series. They won one with a big game from Nylander, too. Tavares driving the net in OT resulted in the Knies winner. Those guys are still coming up in big moments.

You look at the number of guys who played every game in that series and came up with zeros and it's a sign that the depth isn't pulling its weight. Zeroes from the D, too aside from a McCabe goal. I'm not pinpointing any single part of that roster. I'm saying that it's depth as a whole just isn't good enough. You take Marner out of that equation and they're a significantly weaker roster. Who cares if Saros is the goalie? They still aren't deep enough.

 

[Bozo Nicholson]

Kyle Dube-Ass would’ve never allowed for this!

 

[belair]

You're right. You'd have to be a pretty big homer to look at a d-core of Rielly (a #2), McCabe (a #4) and a collection of spare parts and think yup that's the defence of a contender.

I'll even call Reilly a #1 with the right partner. But you need more established guys that can handle the elite forwards in this league.

To beat Boston I argued that--if healthy--they needed to stack that top line and reap the benefits of outmatching them for a big chunk of the game. The problem is that they just didn't have the bodies to not get stomped the rest of the game.

It was a mistake letting Hyman get away. But I'll argue that letting ROR get away was a big misstep, too. He was a guy that could've done a lot for them over the next three or four years.

 

[MNRube]

Now tell me why they've never had good depth? Could it be from 4 players taking up half the cap? That's largely on those players (Matthews and Marner in particular) for commanding unprecedented RFA contracts

Tavares is the biggest problem. He is a shell of himself and that move never made any sense given their deficiencies in team defense & depth.

You’re all over this thread ripping Marner & Matthews, but good GMs aren’t this emotional and don’t get relegated to tunnel vision. This is a classic buy-low situation and it very well could pay off like it did with Eichel

 

[JKG33]

Tavares is the biggest problem. He is a shell of himself and that move never made any sense given their deficiencies in team defense & depth.

You’re all over this thread ripping Marner & Matthews, but good GMs aren’t this emotional and don’t get relegated to tunnel vision. This is a classic buy-low situation and it very well could pay off like it did with Eichel

8 Figure cap hits have been around for 9 years. It took a team until last season to win with one.

It's not emotional at all. It was maybe 5 years ago when I realized they're a problem. But now it's become painfully obvious they aren't players you build around if your goal is to win a stanley cup.

Once again Eichel was an unknown. Marner is incredibly known for what he is

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Any trade onf Marner will be with an extension on place which factors into the return also. The best goalie outside the NHL is a factor too as is the fact that goalie valuing is tricky business.

No it doesn't, that's what conditional re-sign picks used to do, now they are illegal.

 

[MNRube]

8 Figure cap hits have been around for 9 years. It took a team until last season to win with one.

It's not emotional at all. It was maybe 5 years ago when I realized they're a problem. But now it's become painfully obvious they aren't players you build around if your goal is to win a stanley cup.

Once again Eichel was an unknown. Marner is incredibly known for what he is

LoL, I love how you speak on these things like they are 100% black and white. What a ridiculous mindset. Wish you were a rivals GM

 

[JKG33]

LoL, I love how you speak on these things like they are 100% black and white. What a ridiculous mindset. Wish you were a rivals GM

Being passive doesn't win you championships. Look at Vegas.

I can say with confidence I wouldn't have done worse than the Leafs previous GM.

 

[conFABulator]

No it doesn't, that's what conditional re-sign picks used to do, now they are illegal.

I mean the Leafs wait until July 1st and either let the other team sign Marner as part of the deal or the Leafs sign him and trade him (with MM's approval). It also means that the Leafs will have paid Marner's bonus on July 1, covering over $7M in real dollars.

 

[MNRube]

Being passive doesn't win you championships. Look at Vegas.

I can say with confidence I wouldn't have done worse than the Leafs previous GM.

You have the most basic views possible on these players and this situation. Thats the funny part. Youre proposing passivity and accepting surface level opinions as gospel based off emotion. I honestly think this mindset is why Canada hasn’t won a Cup in 30 years. No creativity or risk-taking = no rewards

 

[JKG33]

You have the most basic views possible on these players and this situation. Thats the funny part. Youre proposing passivity and accepting surface level opinions as gospel based off emotion. I honestly think this mindset is why Canada hasn’t won a Cup in 30 years. No creativity or risk-taking = no rewards

What the Leafs have done the last 5 years is passive.. running it back with the same core every year hoping they magically figure it out. It doesn't get more passive than that.

You're contradicting yourself, come back when you have some semblance of a point.

Canada hasn't won a cup partly because the GMs are too scared to make a balls on the table type of trade. The other part is because players rightly would rather play somewhere else.

 

[MNRube]

What the Leafs have done the last 5 years is passive.. running it back with the same core every year hoping they magically figure it out. It doesn't get more passive than that.

You're contradicting yourself, come back when you have some semblance of a point.

Canada hasn't won a cup partly because the GMs are too scared to make a balls on the table type of trade. The other part is because players rightly would rather play somewhere else.

This thread is about NASHVILLE trading for Marner. Not Toronto. I’m not talking about Toronto. We are here to discuss the Marner to Nashville rumors. A rumor that would be extremely Vegas like if they do it. You’re the one contradicting yourself and turning it into a Toronto discussion

 

[JKG33]

This thread is about NASHVILLE trading for Marner. Not Toronto. I’m not talking about Toronto. We are here to discuss the Marner to Nashville rumors. A rumor that would be extremely Vegas like if they do it. You’re the one contradicting yourself and turning it into a Toronto discussion

It would be like Vegas in that it's a move sure, but not one they'd make.

I sure wish you were a rivals GM eager to take Marner off my team's hands. Like I said he's proven what he is. Have fun and good riddance to the team acquiring him hoping to win a cup

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

I mean the Leafs wait until July 1st and either let the other team sign Marner as part of the deal or the Leafs sign him and trade him (with MM's approval). It also means that the Leafs will have paid Marner's bonus on July 1, covering over $7M in real dollars.

There is no "as part of the deal." If Toronto agrees to an extension with Marner he's not waiving anywhere. A sign and trade will never happen with him

 

[belair]

What the Leafs have done the last 5 years is passive.. running it back with the same core every year hoping they magically figure it out. It doesn't get more passive than that.

You're contradicting yourself, come back when you have some semblance of a point.

Canada hasn't won a cup partly because the GMs are too scared to make a balls on the table type of trade. The other part is because players rightly would rather play somewhere else.

One would argue that the signing of Tavares at age 28 was the risk they took though. Their unwillingness to shift from that vision was what ultimately led to their downfall.

I'd also argue that Canada's Cup drought lies heavily on those markets consistently expecting a moderately competitive product. It's rare for these teams to thoroughly commit to an actual rebuild. These rosters are frequently polluted with contracts attached to quick fixes that often don't pan out.

 

[conFABulator]

There is no "as part of the deal." If Toronto agrees to an extension with Marner he's not waiving anywhere. A sign and trade will never happening with him.

Ok. They also will not trade him without the knowledge that an extension is in place because his value would be too low.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Ok. They also will not trade him without the knowledge that an extension is in place because his value would be too low.

That's Toronto's problem. This is how it always works, the rules aren't suddenly going to change because Toronto is the team trying to trade their star player

 

[4thline]

That's Toronto's problem. This is how it always works, the rules aren't suddenly going to change because Toronto is the team trying to trade their star player

What rules? All they have to do is grant his agent permission to talk to the GM in question to work out a deal to be executed immediately after the trade. He doesnt need to sign the deal with the leafs to unlock the 8th year

 

[conFABulator]

That's Toronto's problem. This is how it always works, the rules aren't suddenly going to change because Toronto is the team trying to trade their star player

Ok, what rules am I changing exactly? If Nashville wants Marner and if he wants to go to Nashville then a contract twill be worked out before a deal is done. This happens in the NHL. What rules are suddenly changing?

However, that extension Marner would sign with Nashville could only be seven years (until next March 1) and this is why you might see all parties interested in a sign and trade. The terms could be agreed to by Nashville and Marner, but if Toronto papers it before trading him they can do an eighth year. This gives Marner more security, would lower AAV for Nashville and therefore increase the return for Toronto.

No rules suddenly changing.

 

[jetsforever]

Weren't there already rumours about moving Saros?
Pretty sure Marner could land him plus more maybe

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

What rules? All they have to do is grant his agent permission to talk to the GM in question to work out a deal to be executed immediately after the trade. He doesnt need to sign the deal with the leafs to unlock the 8th year

Yeah that's pretty normal. Doesn't change Marner's trade value though

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Ok, what rules am I changing exactly? If Nashville wants Marner and if he wants to go to Nashville then a contract twill be worked out before a deal is done. This happens in the NHL. What rules are suddenly changing?

A contract might be worked out before a deal is made. But that has nothing to do with Toronto's return. He is traded as a full 1 year rental, he cannot be marketed as anything more than that because Toronto has no say whatsoever on if he signs a contract with his new team or not after a trade is made.

However, that extension Marner would sign with Nashville could only be seven years (until next March 1) and this is why you might see all parties interested in a sign and trade. The terms could be agreed to by Nashville and Marner, but if Toronto papers it before trading him they can do an eighth year. This gives Marner more security, would lower AAV for Nashville and therefore increase the return for Toronto.

No rules suddenly changing.

What are you talking about? There is no rule preventing Marner from signing an 8 year extension with a new team post trade. Whatever team he is on prior to the 24/25 Trade Deadline can sign him to an 8 year extension.

 

[conFABulator]

A contract might be worked out before a deal is made. But that has nothing to do with Toronto's return. He is traded as a full 1 year rental, he cannot be marketed as anything more than that because Toronto has no say whatsoever on if he signs a contract with his new team or not after a trade is made.


What are you talking about? There is no rule preventing Marner from signing an 8 year extension with a new team post trade. Whatever team he is on prior to the 24/25 Trade Deadline can sign him to an 8 year extension.

It feels like you are trying to be right, rather than logical. Marner has more value to Nashville if he comes with an extension. Therefore Toronto will facilitate an extension being in place. This is the whole point of finding a place Marner wants to go to. Again, Marner wants to get paid and Nashville doesn't want only one year of Marner. These are the conditions that make a trade work for all three parties.

Also, look up the Mark Stone deal to Vegas. He got traded but didn't sign an extension until the following March because you can't sign a max term deal until then after being acquired in a trade. Since, Nashville and Marner may not want to wait that long a sign and trade could remedy this.

 

[Cashville]

Has anyone provided a decent source on this trade rumor yet? LeBrun is a reputable hockey reporter. It just feels like there's not a whole lot here re: Marner+NSH beyond basic conjecture around teams with sufficient cap space and the generally right amount of "win now/soon" attitude to potentially transact.

I question it because, while Marner is a terrific winger, he is just not at all the type of forward Trotz covets, and he's made several immediate actions upon becoming GM that only strengthen that view imo (e.g., buying out Duchene asap). My doubt on this trade is more related to the personalities involved, I just don't see Trotz doing it until there's surprisingly good value in it (unlikely for TOR).

 

[JKG33]

Ok, what rules am I changing exactly? If Nashville wants Marner and if he wants to go to Nashville then a contract twill be worked out before a deal is done. This happens in the NHL. What rules are suddenly changing?

However, that extension Marner would sign with Nashville could only be seven years (until next March 1) and this is why you might see all parties interested in a sign and trade. The terms could be agreed to by Nashville and Marner, but if Toronto papers it before trading him they can do an eighth year. This gives Marner more security, would lower AAV for Nashville and therefore increase the return for Toronto.

No rules suddenly changing.

When's the last time a pending UFA sign and trade lead to a significantly greater return in trade value? The highest profile player I can think of is Stone, and that return was still fairly meh. And I'd damn sure take Stone over Marner if I'm trying to win a cup