Value of: Draisaitl Revisited

[Spirits]

and he’s never been known as a speedster.

Don't have to be when you cherry pick all of the time.

He coasts most of the time and doesn’t play hard defensively he’ll still have gas in the tank all those years haha

This.

 

[SirloinUB]

I don’t see him leaving Edmonton at this point in his career and would be quite happy to offer 13+ for 7 years.

 

[Realm]

If the Oilers get bounced in round 1 or 2 the odds he leaves is a lot higher, if the Oilers cant win a cup now its only going to get worse if they have to give Drai and McDavid a 4+5 million per raise each and find a way to keep Bouchard.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Tavares got fair market value for a top 10 C in a bidding war.

The leafs lost hyman because they overpaid Nylander Marner and Matthews on their 1st time RFA deals. At 6 years based on comparables Nylander should have been at 6 mill. Marner shouldn't have been above 9 mill on a 6 year deal, and Matthews on a 5 year deal walking him straight to UFA shouldn't have gotten more than 10-10.5.

Maybe if they got all 3 on 8 year deals it would have been fine, but on 6 6 and 5 for 1st time RFAs giving them massive trade protections when they hit UFA age (so they can take you to the cleaners again on the next contract with all the leverage) was awful negotiating and use of leverage

You're making my case for me. Sometimes a UFA can sign a "market" deal (Tavares, Panarin two examples) that they justify with their play and potentially have a negative impact on the team from the cap crunch created. So while the initial acquisition was "free" from an asset perspective, it still cost the team in the long run.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Tavares got fair market value for a top 10 C in a bidding war.

The leafs lost hyman because they overpaid Nylander Marner and Matthews on their 1st time RFA deals. At 6 years based on comparables Nylander should have been at 6 mill. Marner shouldn't have been above 9 mill on a 6 year deal, and Matthews on a 5 year deal walking him straight to UFA shouldn't have gotten more than 10-10.5.

Maybe if they got all 3 on 8 year deals it would have been fine, but on 6 6 and 5 for 1st time RFAs giving them massive trade protections when they hit UFA age (so they can take you to the cleaners again on the next contract with all the leverage) was awful negotiating and use of leverage

Out of curiosity, what leverage would you use when negotiating with a high end young player who wants trade protections coming off his ELC?

Would you just refuse sign the contract, and hold your best young players out because they want trade protection, hoping they eventually cave in an effort to force them into a cheap short term contract, likely making the next RFA negotiations that much more contentious? How long do you think it'll take until they find a way off your team? Will they even make it to UFA before you lose them?

Or would you try to keep the high end youngster happy, and sign them to the best deal you can get them to agree to without too much hassle, hoping that you giving a little on their 2nd contract will help convince them to sign a big extension before testing UFA when the contract expires?

 

[Akrapovince]

Whatever he damn asks for.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Out of curiosity, what leverage would you use when negotiating with a high end young player who wants trade protections coming off his ELC?

Would you just refuse sign the contract, and hold your best young players out because they want trade protection, hoping they eventually cave in an effort to force them into a cheap short term contract, likely making the next RFA negotiations that much more contentious? How long do you think it'll take until they find a way off your team? Will they even make it to UFA before you lose them?

Or would you try to keep the high end youngster happy, and sign them to the best deal you can get them to agree to without too much hassle, hoping that you giving a little on their 2nd contract will help convince them to sign a big extension before testing UFA when the contract expires?

The correct play was apparently to sit Nylander out a year and put yourself in a situation where the 3 players that run your offense can 3v1 negotiate against you as a bloc because what else are you gonna do? You can’t let them sit and use their cap space on other top line forwards, you’re gonna get pennies on the dollar in a trade, less for every game they miss, the offer sheet route puts you back at step 1 of the rebuild except instead you have picks in the late 20s instead of top 5.

 

[dgibb10]

Out of curiosity, what leverage would you use when negotiating with a high end young player who wants trade protections coming off his ELC?

Would you just refuse sign the contract, and hold your best young players out because they want trade protection, hoping they eventually cave in an effort to force them into a cheap short term contract, likely making the next RFA negotiations that much more contentious? How long do you think it'll take until they find a way off your team? Will they even make it to UFA before you lose them?

Or would you try to keep the high end youngster happy, and sign them to the best deal you can get them to agree to without too much hassle, hoping that you giving a little on their 2nd contract will help convince them to sign a big extension before testing UFA when the contract expires?

Well A) the leverage of the fact that they can't play anywhere else. Offer sheets aren't a real, meaningful threat (especially on a Marner/Matthews where the cost is in the 4 1sts range).

You use the leverage of financial security with 3 guys who have not yet made excellent money.

Marner specifically is a hometown boy who doesn't actually want to play anywhere else.

Did I say they should have gotten bridge deals? In fact I said the opposite. Leaving a combined 7 years on the table between the 3 was dumb.

All the goodwill they got in those first negotiations really helped them when they had to pay: checks notes: 25 million dollars combined in AAV to Nylander and Matthews.

Marner was especialy egregious. He was a 25 goal winger. To this day he is still the largest RFA winger contract in history by 1.4 million dollars. And it was for MITCH MARNER. AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN GET 8 YEARS. When Mikko Rantenen, a better player, and who was able to use the Marner contract as a benchline for negotiations since he signed after, gets 1.7 million dolllars a year less, you know you have massively f***ed up as a GM

 

[dgibb10]

The correct play was apparently to sit Nylander out a year and put yourself in a situation where the 3 players that run your offense can 3v1 negotiate against you as a bloc because what else are you gonna do? You can’t let them sit and use their cap space on other top line forwards, you’re gonna get pennies on the dollar in a trade, less for every game they miss, the offer sheet route puts you back at step 1 of the rebuild except instead you have picks in the late 20s instead of top 5.

The correct play was to do a better job in all 3 negotiations. Matthews deal would have been good at 8 years. 5 years costs ya 6 million dollars.

Nylander was the best one, but comps suggest he should have been at 6 in line with filip forberg. Certainly should have been below the pastrnak deal.

And marner was just all around horrific. Not enough term, too much money. Frankly, when you think about the player's age, position, play leading into the contract, hometown kid who didn't want to play anywhere else, this is the worst job a GM has done negotiations in recent memory.

A generous comp for Marner would have been the kucherov deal at 9.5x8 (again, keep in mind kucherov was 1 year away from UFA coming off 2 seasons at a pace of 42 goals 98.5 points). Probably upwards of 10 mill or so wasted there. Based on what rantanen got later that summer on a 6 year deal I'd say 9 mill should have been the max for marner

 

[93LEAFS]

A lot of Leon’s strengths are things that should age relatively well. His passing, IQ, size/strength, vision and quick release shouldn’t take too much of a hit into his mid 30s and he’s never been known as a speedster.

I don’t think it’ll be as bad as you’re suggesting.

Yeah, I could see him aging like Joe Thornton or Getzlaf, who didn't age terribly. He's not going to be the same player at 37 as he is at 29, but the cap is gonna go up to somewhat balance that.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

If he's going full mercenary it'll be like 7x15.

 

[Fourier]

Guys who never relied on speed when they were young often age better than guys who did because their games always worked with lead feet. Think about players like Thornton and Pavelski.

I agree that Draisaitl's game does not rely on speed. But he is actually very fast.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Well A) the leverage of the fact that they can't play anywhere else. Offer sheets aren't a real, meaningful threat (especially on a Marner/Matthews where the cost is in the 4 1sts range).

You use the leverage of financial security with 3 guys who have not yet made excellent money.

Marner specifically is a hometown boy who doesn't actually want to play anywhere else.

Did I say they should have gotten bridge deals? In fact I said the opposite. Leaving a combined 7 years on the table between the 3 was dumb.

All the goodwill they got in those first negotiations really helped them when they had to pay: checks notes: 25 million dollars combined in AAV to Nylander and Matthews.

Marner was especialy egregious. He was a 25 goal winger. To this day he is still the largest RFA winger contract in history by 1.4 million dollars. And it was for MITCH MARNER. AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN GET 8 YEARS. When Mikko Rantenen, a better player, and who was able to use the Marner contract as a benchline for negotiations since he signed after, gets 1.7 million dolllars a year less, you know you have massively f***ed up as a GM

Ok, just so we're clear here -

Let's say you are the Leafs' GM and you go into negotiations with Matthews during the last year of his ELC. You make an 8 year offer, at a relatively team friendly AAV, but his agent counters and says he'll only sign for 4 years at that AAV and that UFAs years will cost you more. His agent points at Matthews being on a 40+ goal pace for the 3rd straight year, and PPG+ for the second straight year as reasons why he expects to get a massive AAV in UFA.

In this scenario, how exactly do you use the fact that he's beholden to your team as a RFA for only 4 more years to coerce his agent into having him sign a contract that includes multiple UFA seasons at what will likely be a massive discount without getting anything in return? And what's your strategy when his agent laughs at you and refuses to accept anything longer than 4 years at the lowball AAV you're offering? Are you really going to walk away from negotiations with the best young player your team has had in decades? If not, then what leverage do you actually have?

Also, how do you convince his agent that signing for 8 years with no trade protections and a team friendly AAV gives him greater financial stability compared to a 4 year, $43.5m contract with $40m in signing bonuses, some ability to control where he plays to try to ensure he doesn't end up on a bad team that impacts his performance/future earnings and the high likelihood to have a much higher AAV when he hits UFA in 4 years with the salary cap expected to go up?

 

[dgibb10]

Ok, just so we're clear here -

Let's say you are the Leafs' GM and you go into negotiations with Matthews during the last year of his ELC. You make an 8 year offer, at a relatively team friendly AAV, but his agent counters and says he'll only sign for 4 years at that AAV and that UFAs years will cost you more. His agent points at Matthews being on a 40+ goal pace for the 3rd straight year, and PPG+ for the second straight year as reasons why he expects to get a massive AAV in UFA.

In this scenario, how exactly do you use the fact that he's beholden to your team as a RFA for only 4 more years to coerce his agent into having him sign a contract that includes multiple UFA seasons at what will likely be a massive discount without getting anything in return? And what's your strategy when his agent laughs at you and refuses to accept anything longer than 4 years at the lowball AAV you're offering? Are you really going to walk away from negotiations with the best young player your team has had in decades? If not, then what leverage do you actually have?

Also, how do you convince his agent that signing for 8 years with no trade protections and a team friendly AAV gives him greater financial stability compared to a 4 year, $43.5m contract with $40m in signing bonuses, some ability to control where he plays to try to ensure he doesn't end up on a bad team that impacts his performance/future earnings and the high likelihood to have a much higher AAV when he hits UFA in 4 years with the salary cap expected to go up?

Weird how virtually every other team in the league has generally been able to find either max term, or if not max term, then a reasonable AAV on their first time RFAs, especially if they want to stay. I guess Marner, Matthews, and Nylander all have the best agents in hockey and were all willing to demand trades.

It's a negotiation, there is give and take. If Matthews isn't willing to budge on term, the AAV better be cheaper, there better not be trade protections at the end (so he can't strong arm you again on his UFA contract). Frankly if the cap didn't stall the contracts would have looked even worse as matthews would have been asking for 15 on his new deal, and not getting 8 years would have been even more brutal.

But when you only get 5 years, give a full NMC the second he hits UFA status (allowing him to control the negotiations on a 2nd contract lest you risk losing him for nothing as a UFA), and give a massive AAV, that's not good negotiating.

But when you sign 2 more guys, both on above market contracts and also not getting full term, then it becomes an issue.

Specifically Marner. Who was again, a hometown boy who didn't want to play anywhere else. Worst negotiating job in recent NHL history by a GM.

Kyle Dubas cost the leafs about 20 million dollars of value with those negotiations.

How can you even begin to defend the Marner negotiations after the Rantanen negotiations (And Rantanen was able to use the Marner contract to negotiate off of, giving him additional leverage)

 

[Voight]

Weird how virtually every other team in the league has generally been able to find either max term, or if not max term, then a reasonable AAV on their first time RFAs, especially if they want to stay. I guess Marner, Matthews, and Nylander all have the best agents in hockey and were all willing to demand trades.

It's a negotiation, there is give and take. If Matthews isn't willing to budge on term, the AAV better be cheaper, there better not be trade protections at the end (so he can't strong arm you again on his UFA contract). Frankly if the cap didn't stall the contracts would have looked even worse as matthews would have been asking for 15 on his new deal, and not getting 8 years would have been even more brutal.

But when you only get 5 years, give a full NMC the second he hits UFA status (allowing him to control the negotiations on a 2nd contract lest you risk losing him for nothing as a UFA), and give a massive AAV, that's not good negotiating.

But when you sign 2 more guys, both on above market contracts and also not getting full term, then it becomes an issue.

Specifically Marner. Who was again, a hometown boy who didn't want to play anywhere else. Worst negotiating job in recent NHL history by a GM.

Kyle Dubas cost the leafs about 20 million dollars of value with those negotiations.

How can you even begin to defend the Marner negotiations after the Rantanen negotiations (And Rantanen was able to use the Marner contract to negotiate off of, giving him additional leverage)

When Eichel signed for $10 million/year, that set the floor for Matthews/Marner, they were never going to get less than that.

 

[dgibb10]

When Eichel signed for $10 million/year, that set the floor for Matthews/Marner, they were never going to get less than that.

The sabres got the full 8 years of term on Eichel.

Matthews got 5, and Marner got 6. If you aren't getting full term the AAV should go down.

Honestly the leafs got bailed out by the cap not going up or Matthews extension would have been at 15 mill and marners at 13. They offered the equivalent 0f 13x8 to Matthews, and 11.4x8 to marner.

Also why would a winger like Marner get more than Eichel? Surely the next big 1st time RFA winger (with better production than Marner) to sign immediately after Marner also got 11 mill right? Wait, I'm hearing Rantanen got 9.25x6. And then RD reigning norris finalist Makar got 9x6.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Weird how virtually every other team in the league has generally been able to find either max term, or if not max term, then a reasonable AAV on their first time RFAs, especially if they want to stay. I guess Marner, Matthews, and Nylander all have the best agents in hockey and were all willing to demand trades.

It's a negotiation, there is give and take. If Matthews isn't willing to budge on term, the AAV better be cheaper, there better not be trade protections at the end (so he can't strong arm you again on his UFA contract). Frankly if the cap didn't stall the contracts would have looked even worse as matthews would have been asking for 15 on his new deal, and not getting 8 years would have been even more brutal.

But when you only get 5 years, give a full NMC the second he hits UFA status (allowing him to control the negotiations on a 2nd contract lest you risk losing him for nothing as a UFA), and give a massive AAV, that's not good negotiating.

But when you sign 2 more guys, both on above market contracts and also not getting full term, then it becomes an issue.

Specifically Marner. Who was again, a hometown boy who didn't want to play anywhere else. Worst negotiating job in recent NHL history by a GM.

Kyle Dubas cost the leafs about 20 million dollars of value with those negotiations.

How can you even begin to defend the Marner negotiations after the Rantanen negotiations (And Rantanen was able to use the Marner contract to negotiate off of, giving him additional leverage)

Name a recent player who put up 3 straight 40+ goal pace seasons, and 2 PPG+ seasons on his ELC that didn't get a massive 2nd contract. Or another player who had 68 assists in the last year of his ELC, 4th most in the NHL that season, and 94 points overall (11th best), while getting Selke votes, that didn't get a massive payday. Weird how the guys who put up the best ELC seasons got paid the most, and had the most leverage to get to UFA sooner.

And, yes, every competent agent on this planet should absolutely be willing to demand a trade if the situation warrants it. But, I believe the threat of their client holding out and/or refusing to play for a team for longer than the 4 RFA years they're entitled to is just as effective as leverage, so there's no reason to go that hard in what should be basic contract negotiations.

On that topic, who really cares where Marner grew up or wants to play when it comes to contract negotiations? He has an agent who exists solely to represent him in business deals so he gets the best contracts possible. And the NHLPA wants him to get the best contract possible to help keep the league's long term revenue sharing obligations in line with projections for future revenue. But you think he should just take a discounted AAV because his childhood team wants him to?

But, you're right, negotiations are give and take. This is why my question is - what do you give Matthews to accept not having trade protections and taking less money on a 5 year contract? What do you take away if he refuses to sign your dream contract, preferring something that benefits him more? Are you really going to force your star youngster to hold out because you want a better contract? Risk pissing him off to the point where he's gone the second he hits UFA? Or would it be smarter for long term success to take the players dream contract and whittle away at the areas where you can to try to find a final deal you can both live with, keeping him happy enough to stay on your team for life?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

The sabres got the full 8 years of term on Eichel.

Matthews got 5, and Marner got 6. If you aren't getting full term the AAV should go down.

Honestly the leafs got bailed out by the cap not going up or Matthews extension would have been at 15 mill and marners at 13. They offered the equivalent 0f 13x8 to Matthews, and 11.4x8 to marner.

Also why would a winger like Marner get more than Eichel? Surely the next big 1st time RFA winger (with better production than Marner) to sign immediately after Marner also got 11 mill right? Wait, I'm hearing Rantanen got 9.25x6. And then RD reigning norris finalist Makar got 9x6.

Eichel's best season on his ELC was 64 points in 67 games. Zero 30 goal seasons. Buffalo gave him $10m based on potential, Eichel gave them 8 years.

Marner had 94 points his final year of his ELC, and got Selke votes. Why shouldn't he get paid more based on actually putting up a season like Buffalo hoped they'd eventually get from Eichel?

And, Rantanen signed for a little less because there was still more "potential" to his game, while Marner was already performing at a higher level.

And I'm pretty sure Makar got the highest AAV on his 2nd contract of any defenseman in NHL history at the time it was signed, with it taking a similar % of the cap as previous top defensemen coming off ELCs. He also had just won the Cup, and probably left a little money on the table to give himself a better chance to do that again.

 

[dgibb10]

Eichel's best season on his ELC was 64 points in 67 games. Zero 30 goal seasons. Buffalo gave him $10m based on potential, Eichel gave them 8 years.

Marner had 94 points his final year of his ELC, and got Selke votes. Why shouldn't he get paid more based on actually putting up a season like Buffalo hoped they'd eventually get from Eichel?

And, Rantanen signed for a little less because there was still more "potential" to his game, while Marner was already performing at a higher level.

And I'm pretty sure Makar got the highest AAV on his 2nd contract of any defenseman in NHL history at the time it was signed, with it taking a similar % of the cap as previous top defensemen coming off ELCs. He also had just won the Cup, and probably left a little money on the table to give himself a better chance to do that again.

Rantanen in the 2 years before signing his contract: 155 games 60 goals, 171 points
Marner in the 2 years before signing his contract: 164 games, 44 goals, 163 points

 

[dgibb10]

Name a recent player who put up 3 straight 40+ goal pace seasons, and 2 PPG+ seasons on his ELC that didn't get a massive 2nd contract. Or another player who had 68 assists in the last year of his ELC, 4th most in the NHL that season, and 94 points overall (11th best), while getting Selke votes, that didn't get a massive payday. Weird how the guys who put up the best ELC seasons got paid the most, and had the most leverage to get to UFA sooner.

And, yes, every competent agent on this planet should absolutely be willing to demand a trade if the situation warrants it. But, I believe the threat of their client holding out and/or refusing to play for a team for longer than the 4 RFA years they're entitled to is just as effective as leverage, so there's no reason to go that hard in what should be basic contract negotiations.

On that topic, who really cares where Marner grew up or wants to play when it comes to contract negotiations? He has an agent who exists solely to represent him in business deals so he gets the best contracts possible. And the NHLPA wants him to get the best contract possible to help keep the league's long term revenue sharing obligations in line with projections for future revenue. But you think he should just take a discounted AAV because his childhood team wants him to?

But, you're right, negotiations are give and take. This is why my question is - what do you give Matthews to accept not having trade protections and taking less money on a 5 year contract? What do you take away if he refuses to sign your dream contract, preferring something that benefits him more? Are you really going to force your star youngster to hold out because you want a better contract? Risk pissing him off to the point where he's gone the second he hits UFA? Or would it be smarter for long term success to take the players dream contract and whittle away at the areas where you can to try to find a final deal you can both live with, keeping him happy enough to stay on your team for life?

Rantanen had a better resume than Marner and got 1.7 mill less despite signing after marner (meaning he was able to use the Marner deal as a baseline). There's for example a reason Jamar Chase in the NFL is waiting for Jeffersson to sign. Because he wants to use that deal as a baseline. But the Marner deal was so outrageous of an overpay, even Rantanen's agent couldn't use it as a comp.

Here's a list of RFA wingers to get more than 9.5 million dollars: Mitch Marner.


Are you telling me Mitch Marner, with significantly less leverage, because he's 4 years away from UFA and not even arbitration eligible, had any logic to get. Was someone gonna come and offer 11 mill a year and 4 unprotected 1sts to take him away? Nope.

1.4 mill than Nikita Kucherov did coming off back to back 40 goal 100 point seasons?
1.4 mill more than Matthew Tkachuk did coming off a 40 goal 105 point season?
1.7 mill more than Rantanen got?

Marner at 9.5 millx8 years wouldn't have been a discount. It would have been comparable to what NIKITA KUCHEROV got.

While only buying TWO of his UFA years.

"Keeping him happy enough to stay on your team for life". No, they kept him happy enough to stay on their team 1 year past when they already owned his rights at a massive salary while giving him all the leverage in the next negotiations (which he used), and the power to leave for free if he so chooses with you not being able to do a thing about it.

In terms of Give and Take on matthews:

If you're going to cave and give him 11.6 mill a year as a first time RFA, you better get 8 years. Simple as that.

If Matthews isn't willing to cave on term, then he gets LESS on AAV.\

They caved on term. They caved on AAV. They caved on trade protections. They even caved and gave him it in signing bonuses just to make it even sweeter for him. Caving on every single point isn't negotiating.

Every other RFA ever has also had the same leverage to demand a trade if they want. Marner as a hometown kid would be much less likely to actually want a trade. And yet no other RFA winger has ever gotten a contract even close to Marner's. Massive overpay

 

[n8]

Who can even afford 13 x 7 right now?

 

[ElPrimeTime]

Who can even afford 13 x 7 right now?

You're talking about the 2025-2026 season when it kicks in and a projected salary cap of $92M. Every team can afford that.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Rantanen had a better resume than Marner and got 1.7 mill less despite signing after marner (meaning he was able to use the Marner deal as a baseline). There's for example a reason Jamar Chase in the NFL is waiting for Jeffersson to sign. Because he wants to use that deal as a baseline. But the Marner deal was so outrageous of an overpay, even Rantanen's agent couldn't use it as a comp.

Here's a list of RFA wingers to get more than 9.5 million dollars: Mitch Marner.


Are you telling me Mitch Marner, with significantly less leverage, because he's 4 years away from UFA and not even arbitration eligible, had any logic to get. Was someone gonna come and offer 11 mill a year and 4 unprotected 1sts to take him away? Nope.

1.4 mill than Nikita Kucherov did coming off back to back 40 goal 100 point seasons?
1.4 mill more than Matthew Tkachuk did coming off a 40 goal 105 point season?
1.7 mill more than Rantanen got?

Marner at 9.5 millx8 years wouldn't have been a discount. It would have been comparable to what NIKITA KUCHEROV got.

While only buying TWO of his UFA years.

"Keeping him happy enough to stay on your team for life". No, they kept him happy enough to stay on their team 1 year past when they already owned his rights at a massive salary while giving him all the leverage in the next negotiations (which he used), and the power to leave for free if he so chooses with you not being able to do a thing about it.

In terms of Give and Take on matthews:

If you're going to cave and give him 11.6 mill a year as a first time RFA, you better get 8 years. Simple as that.

If Matthews isn't willing to cave on term, then he gets LESS on AAV.\

They caved on term. They caved on AAV. They caved on trade protections. They even caved and gave him it in signing bonuses just to make it even sweeter for him. Caving on every single point isn't negotiating.

Every other RFA ever has also had the same leverage to demand a trade if they want. Marner as a hometown kid would be much less likely to actually want a trade. And yet no other RFA winger has ever gotten a contract even close to Marner's. Massive overpay

I'm an Avs fan so it hurts me to do this, but I disagree that Rantanen had a better resume going into those negotiations. He scored a few more total points while being stapled to Nathan MacKinnon. Marner had 94 points and the 4th most assists in the NHL his 3rd year while playing primarily with Tavares and Hyman. And averaged almost 45 seconds per game on the PK, compared to 3 minutes total for Rantanen. Objectively, I can't see an argument for Marner not to get more money than Rantanen. He literally led the Leafs in scoring over the 2 years you cited, by a considerable amount.

Kucherov and Tkachuk both signed bridge deals, and were almost 25 when they signed their third contracts. Marner had just turned 22. I can make a pretty strong argument that 22 year old Marner could still potentially reach another level, compared to what he showed on his ELC, while the other two guys could be described as probably being closer to finished products, so his agent was arguably justified in asking for more. Maybe not 1.4m more, but he got it, which is all the justification he really needs.


I also still don't know what you think is a better alternative to "caving". How exactly does Toronto exert any of the leverage you claim they have, when the other side says no to their requests? If it's "as simple as that", like you claim, then explain exactly how you make it happen. How do you get Matthews to take a team friendly 8 year contract?

 

[Maple Leaf]

Would this guy be interested in a big move?

 

[Xerloris]

He got 17 points in 5 games playing on 1 leg against Calgary after he suffered a high ankle sprain at the end of the previous round.

ya bu that comes with an asterisk because it was against Calgary.