Auston Matthews Thread

[Throw More Waffles]

actual time spent on the ice is not an excuse, it's an integral fact.

if one "70pt player" is radically better offensively than another "70pt player", then maybe you should consider that the label "70pt player" actually doesn't mean anything useful at all.

No other team does this.

70 point players are paid as 70 point players regardless of the nonsense. Other teams don’t say “Yeah, he only got 70 points... but what he had better linemates? More minutes? More pp time? Let’s pay him based on those fake numbers.” No other team does this.

If that’s the way it worked, pretty much every third liner would be paid as a star player. “Sure... he only got 35 points. But what if played 20 minutes a game? Was in the 1st pp? Had elite linemates? He’d probably score 60 points. So now we have to pay him as a 60 point player”. It’s insanity. Other teams don’t do this.

 

[zeke]

You are both kind of right. Whereas there is a solid correlation of points to TOI (r^2 of .92), the correlation of p/60 to TOI is actually poor (r^2 of .15). What does this mean? Who knows. We do know that p/60 clearly decreases when players up their toi/ game by 3 minutes or more. It isnt a stretch to say that fewer games keep production levels high (hello Kawhai load management). What we dont know is at what level an injury caused inactivity does to all players. I think the argument is credible from both sides.

We dont actually know that.

 

[crump]

OV and Matthews are anomalies being the only modern day players on those lists. The 80’s players got huge boosts playing in that era.

Impressive

 

[zeke]

"Realist" here.

25 games played for auston:

19-20 season: 16 goals, 14 assists, 30 points

18-19 season: 19 goals, 16 assists, 35 points.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but its definitely not a good one.

Or are you going to tell me that 16 goals, 30 points > 19 goals, 35 points?

Interesting numbers.

Before I respond with numbers - Are you suggesting that you expect Matthews' production to decrease going forward?

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Context is important, I agree.

But so is being honest.

Zeke said "He had no cups, and lesser production than Matthews...".

This is demonstrably false.

You can say that auston has better /60 rates than malkin, sure. But Malkin did not have "lesser" production than Matthews.

"Production" is often a function of time, so actually it is not "demonstrably false".

 

[zeke]

No other team does this.

70 point players are paid as 70 point players regardless of the nonsense. Other teams don’t say “Yeah, he only got 70 points... but what he had better linemates? More minutes? More pp time? Let’s pay him based on those fake numbers.” No other team does this.

If that’s the way it worked, pretty much every third liner would be paid as a star player. “Sure... he only got 35 points. But what if played 20 minutes a game? Was in the 1st pp? Had elite linemates? He’d probably score 60 points. So now we have to pay him as a 60 point player”. It’s insanity. Other teams don’t do this.

Oh they do. At least the smart ones do.

They know exactly which players have production inflated or deflated due to usage and ice time.

 

[Legion34]

Despite team struggles. And disappointing years AGAIN matthews is top 3 in goals.

And AGAIN we are allowing factual inaccuracies like ignoring the proven state tax advantages.

It’s just sad

 

[JT AM da real deal]

After 3 elc years he was never able to surpass 74 points, and so he should have been paid accordingly.
Every 70 point player has “excuses” for only having 70 points.

Unfortunately players don't control their ice time or their usage. Coaches decide those things. and no one can predict injuries. Those are all issues completely out of Matty's control.
Speaking of Malkin I think he was injured every year of his career after ELC except 1 season.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Despite team struggles. And disappointing years AGAIN matthews is top 3 in goals.

And AGAIN we are allowing factual inaccuracies like ignoring the proven state tax advantages.

It’s just sad

I don’t believe the tax argument.

I don’t believe for a second that players are ceding their tax advantage to billionaire owners. Not for a second.

Player “I want the same cap percentage and term as Matthews.”
Team “Ah, but you pay less taxes here. So we’re taking your tax advantage for ourselves, and subtracting it out of your overall salary.”
Player “ok, no problem.”

That’s insane. Don’t believe it for a second.

 

[Legion34]

I don’t believe the tax argument.

I don’t believe for a second that players are ceding their tax advantage to billionaire owners. Not for a second.

Player “I want the same cap percentage and term as Matthews.”
Team “Ah, but you pay less taxes here. So we’re taking your tax advantage for ourselves, and subtracting it out of your overall salary.”
Player “ok, no problem.”

That’s insane. Don’t believe it for a second.

hahahahah yep. You don’t believe in tax advantages. good.


trump doesn’t believe in global warming..... what could possibly go wrong.

just sad man. Let it go.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

I don’t believe the tax argument.

I don’t believe for a second that players are ceding their tax advantage to billionaire owners. Not for a second.

Player “I want the same cap percentage and term as Matthews.”
Team “Ah, but you pay less taxes here. So we’re taking your tax advantage for ourselves, and subtracting it out of your overall salary.”
Player “ok, no problem.”

That’s insane. Don’t believe it for a second.

Why do you think Kadri had Calgary on his no trade list and vetoed the deal the Leafs wanted to do? Especially when 2 of his better friends are on the team? Answer the way he contract was structured he was way better off in Colorado vs the 15% extra tax in Alberta.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

hahahahah yep. You don’t believe in tax advantages. good.


trump doesn’t believe in global warming..... what could possibly go wrong.

just sad man. Let it go.

I do believe in tax advantages. Players want to go to low tax cities. As Burke says, high tax cities are always on players no trade lists.

That’s the tax advantage.

What I don’t believe is that the players allow their teams to just subtract their tax advantage out of their contracts.

Again, actually address this conversation.

player “I want Matthews cap percentage and term.”
team “but you pay lower taxes. We’re subtracting that out of your salary so that it’s an advantage for us, not you.”
Player “Sure no problem. Billionaires deserve that money more than me. Makes sense.”

You really think that’s how the negotiation would happen? If I learned anything this offseason, it’s that players fight tooth and nail for every last penny they can get.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Why do you think Kadri had Calgary on his no trade list and vetoed the deal the Leafs wanted to do? Especially when 2 of his better friends are on the team? Answer the way he contract was structured he was way better off in Colorado vs the 15% extra tax in Alberta.

Yes, I agree. Players want to make as much money as they possibly can. Which is why they don’t let their gm’s just subtract their tax advantage off of their contracts. They like the tax advantage in tax free states, so they won’t just give it up.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Yes, I agree. Players want to make as much money as they possibly can. Which is why they don’t let their gm’s just subtract their tax advantage off of their contracts. They like the tax advantage in tax free states, so they won’t just give it up.

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that anything above the comparable in take-home money is a win for them. If the tax advantage is 10%, it is a win-win for everyone involved if they split it 5/5 or whatever they deem fair. The player gets more money than they would have otherwise and the team can afford better teammates for them, likely improving their future earning potential.

It is not an all-or-nothing situation like you keep pretending it is. The tax advantage objectively exists no matter how loudly you scream that it doesn't.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that anything above the comparable in take-home money is a win for them. If the tax advantage is 10%, it is a win-win for everyone involved if they split it 5/5 or whatever they deem fair. The player gets more money than they would have otherwise and the team can afford better teammates for them, likely improving their future earning potential.

It is not an all-or-nothing situation like you keep pretending it is. The tax advantage objectively exists no matter how loudly you scream that it doesn't.

A lot of posters here say “They pay 15% less taxes, so their aav will be 15% lower than the leaf player comparable.”

Do you agree that’s false?

Burke says Matthews will want to go back to Phoenix in 5 years because there’s lower taxes. But according to you guys, the tax advantage is just subtracted out of their salary. So which one is it? It can’t be both.

 

[Martin Skoula]

A lot of posters here say “They pay 15% less taxes, so their aav will be 15% lower than the leaf player comparable.”

Do you agree that’s false?

Burke says Matthews will want to go back to Phoenix in 5 years because there’s lower taxes. But according to you guys, the tax advantage is just subtracted out of their salary. So which one is it? It can’t be both.

They pay 15% less in taxes, so their AAV will be between 0 and 15% lower than the Leaf comparable. Are you happy now?

It can be both, this is grade school math that you're failing to grasp for close to a calendar year now. If you take half the tax advantage out of the salary, Matthews still makes more money than he would here, and the team gets a lower cap hit than he would have here. It is really not that difficult.

 

[biotk]

love the player, hate the contract.

Loses his mind every day about Dubas and the contracts of the big three.

Finds out about how Babcock was abusive and that the players hated him - which probably is what led to the extremely expensive contracts in the first place - says no sense in people finding out about that and that people are making mountains out of molehills. .

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Matty is different because he resides F/T in Arizona and is a US citizen. His situation is entirely different than Tavares and Marner. Matty is in the US for 6+ months every year.

 

[Cecithepylon]

Thanks Babcock for helping us tank for Matthews.

 

[Legion34]

I do believe in tax advantages. Players want to go to low tax cities. As Burke says, high tax cities are always on players no trade lists.

That’s the tax advantage.

What I don’t believe is that the players allow their teams to just subtract their tax advantage out of their contracts.

Again, actually address this conversation.

player “I want Matthews cap percentage and term.”
team “but you pay lower taxes. We’re subtracting that out of your salary so that it’s an advantage for us, not you.”
Player “Sure no problem. Billionaires deserve that money more than me. Makes sense.”

You really think that’s how the negotiation would happen? If I learned anything this offseason, it’s that players fight tooth and nail for every last penny they can get.

It’s been explained. They DO fight for every penny they can get.

Whatever money the leafs offer. Tax free teams can offer less to give the SAME money.

the leafs CAN match the salary. It just costs more just to match the contract.

It’s really simple. You just pretend not to understand make up things and then get called on it

 

[Throw More Waffles]

It’s been explained. They DO fight for every penny they can get.

Whatever money the leafs offer. Tax free teams can offer less to give the SAME money.

the leafs CAN match the salary. It just costs more just to match the contract.

It’s really simple. You just pretend not to understand make up things and then get called on it

So when a team negotiates with an rfa, the rfa just accepts that his tax advantage will go to billionaire owners instead of himself? Don’t believe that for a second.

Burke says players want to sign in low tax states. Why would that be the case if the tax advantage is just subtracted out of their salaries?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

They pay 15% less in taxes, so their AAV will be between 0 and 15% lower than the Leaf comparable. Are you happy now?

It can be both, this is grade school math that you're failing to grasp for close to a calendar year now. If you take half the tax advantage out of the salary, Matthews still makes more money than he would here, and the team gets a lower cap hit than he would have here. It is really not that difficult.

So there’s no real quantifiable advantage. Some billionaires convince their players to cede the tax advantage to them (lol). And others can’t. Players fight for every penny. They wouldn’t cede the tax advantage to billionaires.

 

[Legion34]

So when a team negotiates with an rfa, the rfa just accepts that his tax advantage will go to billionaire owners instead of himself? Don’t believe that for a second.

Burke says players want to sign in low tax states. Why would that be the case if the tax advantage is just subtracted out of their salaries?

again do the math. It’s not hard

 

[Gallagbi]

So when a team negotiates with an rfa, the rfa just accepts that his tax advantage will go to billionaire owners instead of himself? Don’t believe that for a second.

Burke says players want to sign in low tax states. Why would that be the case if the tax advantage is just subtracted out of their salaries?

To reinvest in the team and put together a better product seems like the obvious answer.

 

[IPS]

Loses his mind every day about Dubas and the contracts of the big three.

Finds out about how Babcock was abusive and that the players hated him - which probably is what led to the extremely expensive contracts in the first place - says no sense in people finding out about that and that people are making mountains out of molehills. .

lol he's already invested way too much into his anti-Dubas rhetoric to change directions now.