Canadian Team Executive says incompetence of Matthews Deal will affect the rest of the League

[Pookie]

Johnsson and Kapanen can be signed and we don’t have to trade Kadri or Nylander. Lots of options for us.

If those are your choices... Zaitsev has to go

 

[Todd from Leduc]

I don’t get the rush to finalize this now with no term benefits and full pay?? Seems very Chiarellish.

 

[Yackiberg8]

If those are your choices... Zaitsev has to go

Awesome.

 

[lifeisruff]

According to Eric Francis in his article about Tkachuk he said this. Also came up on Tim and Sid. I think i can agree because the Leafs overpaying both of their players it will affect the new batch of RFA's and they will want similar money too which will ruin other teams cap plans.

Flames' Matthew Tkachuk weighs in on impact of Auston Matthews' new deal - Sportsnet.ca

Yeah this is dumb younger players should be paid more, it's a young mans game now. The more you spend on Auston Matthews the less you spend on Millian Lucic or Kyle Okposo.

 

[Pookie]

Awesome.

Someone has to want him

 

[Dache]

Matthews and Marner.

Fair enough.

 

[Dache]

The critics can't decide between hating the cap hit or the term. If you hate the cap hit, why would you insist on a longer term?

Because buying more UFA years would increase the AAV, so an 8 year term would have made the AAV much better

 

[nturn06]

Yeah this is dumb younger players should be paid more, it's a young mans game now. The more you spend on Auston Matthews the less you spend on Millian Lucic or Kyle Okposo.

Well, if you really think that your GM is that incompetent when it comes to FA signings, then I agree that it doesn't matter.... If he is really that bad, you will soon follow the Oilers/Chiarelli model..

 

[wraith985]

The way I see it, if you want flexibility, you sign the player to a bridge (obviously not happening in this case). If he's the cornerstone of your franchise, you give him the money but you lock in term. Dubas did neither. He gave his franchise asset UFA money in exchange for one year of UFA. He didn't lock in term, but he paid like he did. That's the incompetence here, not whether Matthews is worth the money in the abstract.

Matthews can live up to every penny of this contract and it would still be a stumble on Toronto's part because there's basically no scenario where they get outsize value on the deal. If Matthews lives up to the contract, you didn't lock him up long enough and now you have to pay him even more for performance that you expected when the first deal was signed. If he doesn't, you paid him like a UFA when he was under team control and you didn't have to, taking the L there right away. That doesn't even get into the situation with Marner, which is a whole other can of worms.

You can disagree with the above stance, of course, but it's really not that hard to understand why someone might think Matthews is a great player and still think Dubas screwed it up. "Matthews is awesome" is not a response to "Dubas didn't make the best deal".

 

[Stephen]

Because buying more UFA years would increase the AAV, so an 8 year term would have made the AAV much better

What if there's a massive recession and the cap shrinks in five years? I can't predict the future but there's pros and cons to everything. The Matthews contract has risks and upsides, flexibility being one of them.

 

[Mickey Marner]

The way I see it, if you want flexibility, you sign the player to a bridge (obviously not happening in this case). If he's the cornerstone of your franchise, you give him the money but you lock in term. Dubas did neither. He gave his franchise asset UFA money in exchange for one year of UFA. He didn't lock in term, but he paid like he did. That's the incompetence here, not whether Matthews is worth the money in the abstract.

Matthews can live up to every penny of this contract and it would still be a stumble on Toronto's part because there's basically no scenario where they get outsize value on the deal. If Matthews lives up to the contract, you didn't lock him up long enough and now you have to pay him even more for performance that you expected when the first deal was signed. If he doesn't, you paid him like a UFA when he was under team control and you didn't have to, taking the L there right away. That doesn't even get into the situation with Marner, which is a whole other can of worms.

You can disagree with the above stance, of course, but it's really not that hard to understand why someone might think Matthews is a great player and still think Dubas screwed it up. "Matthews is awesome" is not a response to "Dubas didn't make the best deal".

As long as the additional AAV comes out of the pocket of the Marleaus & Hainseys I don't see the issue. Also, re-signing Matthews to an 8 year deal for his 27-34 years > re-signing him to even more money for his 30-37 years.

 

[Dache]

What if there's a massive recession and the cap shrinks in five years? I can't predict the future but there's pros and cons to everything. The Matthews contract has risks and upsides, flexibility being one of them.

Not debating that any of that is possible. I just replied to the question about why would the AAV be higher for a longer contract, no one plans on there being a recession, all
RFA contracts are more money the more
UFA years are bought

 

[Swedish Gretzky]

The way I see it, if you want flexibility, you sign the player to a bridge (obviously not happening in this case). If he's the cornerstone of your franchise, you give him the money but you lock in term. Dubas did neither. He gave his franchise asset UFA money in exchange for one year of UFA. He didn't lock in term, but he paid like he did. That's the incompetence here, not whether Matthews is worth the money in the abstract.

If they won the cup, this would be irrelevant

Matthews can live up to every penny of this contract and it would still be a stumble on Toronto's part because there's basically no scenario where they get outsize value on the deal. If Matthews lives up to the contract, you didn't lock him up long enough and now you have to pay him even more for performance that you expected when the first deal was signed. If he doesn't, you paid him like a UFA when he was under team control and you didn't have to, taking the L there right away. That doesn't even get into the situation with Marner, which is a whole other can of worms.

You can disagree with the above stance, of course, but it's really not that hard to understand why someone might think Matthews is a great player and still think Dubas screwed it up. "Matthews is awesome" is not a response to "Dubas didn't make the best deal".

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Matthews signing incompetence update: 53 points and 27 goals in 43 games. That's a 101 point and 51 goal pace for an 82 game schedule. Even this season after missing 14 games he's still on pace for 89 points and 45 goals at his current PPG average.

 

[CharlieJormad]

It's funny really how every year in every sport, someone gets overpaid and sets precedent for next star to take in monster a contract.
It will always happen.
I still cant believe starting baseball pitchers
Greinke, Kershaw and more I'm sure, make over 30,000,000 avg. Just wow!
Do they play 30 to 40 starts even if they get into playoffs?
Cap or no cap, these guys get paid.