How can teams prevent situations like Marner & Laine?

[Boy Hedican]

Well, in Winnipeg they should probably work on team culture. I'm not even sure if its money/term thats holding him up or just the fact that he doesn't want to be there with that hard-core leadership group.

 

[X66]

There are so many horrible answers in this thread lol.

The reality is, there ain't much you can do.

Guys like Laine and Marner aren't signing deals like Keller because they're a tier above him and are more than comfortable betting on themselves.

They wouldn't be interested in that gamble unless it paid huge, like Eichel's deal.

It backfired for Laine this year, but not Marner.

 

[Oberyn]

Don't draft good players so you don't have to pay them.

 

[Analyst365]

If you draft elite ceiling Alexandre Daigle talent, you pay that ceiling of talent before expecting anything.

 

[AfroThunder396]

You can do what Ray Shero did - tell him that he'll never work in this town again, jump on the table, pull your junk out, and start calling people motherf***ers.

 

[Crede777]

paying young players good money for their prime/peak years?

the question should be how do we prevent teams from the contracts like Lucic, Eriksson, Ladd, etc.

Except that isn't how the CBA is set up.

It is set up to give teams most of the leverage when a player is coming out of his ELC and gives the player most of the leverage when he is a UFA.

And teams have little incentive to change something that gives them leverage when a player is arguably most productive.

The only leverage a player has coming out of his ELC absent an offersheet is to hold out. Teams can get players to forego using this leverage by showing players that holding out will negatively impact their future earnings.

Otherwise, unless the teams willingly give up additional rights, players will continue to hold out because it is the only leverage they have.

 

[JaegerDice]

I understand that they want more money in their contracts, but team success should be more important IMO.

More important to whom?

 

[Kale Hulls]

Simple, you trade them. Don't get me wrong, I think they are both fine, players, especially Marner, but if somebody thinks they are worth much more than what the team thinks that's a character issue. Teams win as teams, not as individuals.

 

[Madap]

Own livelihood > team success all day everyday...get that money.

What will help set up your family and future generation better? a worthless cup and a ring worth ~25k or an extra million every year for your contract term? Maybe a pay cut would work if players got a bonus for each playoff round they reach that not count against the cap.

Its not worthless. For most players its something they've spent their whole lives working for. Us fans can't even imagine what its like to win something like that. Sure, they've also worked hard to make a ton of money, but the difference between 90 vs 100 millions career earnings will have a marginal effect on happiness at best. That goes for him and his future family.

I obviously can't speak for Marner (or any other RFA), but I'm fairly confident that he would regret holding out for the contract he wants if it means getting traded to some random team - only to watch the leafs win the cup without him. Especially if he never wins it with his new team.

 

[Kale Hulls]

Almost every player that holds out gets traded in less than 3 years.

 

[SlapshotTheMovie]

Human greed is universal. Good luck getting a hockey team to solve that problem.

Wanting to provide for your family and get paid your worth is greed? WOW

 

[ottawa]

Its not worthless. For most players its something they've spent their whole lives working for. Us fans can't even imagine what its like to win something like that. Sure, they've also worked hard to make a ton of money, but the difference between 90 vs 100 millions career earnings will have a marginal effect on happiness at best. That goes for him and his future family.

I obviously can't speak for Marner (or any other RFA), but I'm fairly confident that he would regret holding out for the contract he wants if it means getting traded to some random team - only to watch the leafs win the cup without him. Especially if he never wins it with his new team.

The cup is in fact worthless, it has no monetary value. I guess the value of winning the cup is $350k in winnings + 25k ring so you could argue the cup is worth around 375k.

I would take 1-2m x 5 years if I were Marner. Money over cup, easily.

And as far as getting traded to a random team, that would not happen. Marner controls his destiny, no team will trade for Marner not knowing whether or not he'll sign. The ball is entirely in his court here.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

.....said the oilers fan lololol

I also don't get how mods keep allowing leaf haters to post the word dumbass here and yet calling someone a baby gets you an infraction .

Chiarelli won more playoff series in Edmonton than Dubas has in Toronto...

 

[Metroid]

Chiarelli won more playoff series in Edmonton than Dubas has in Toronto...

Lol
I'd rather Marner be over payed than players like lucic that are past their primes.

 

[13th Floor]

I think enough time needs to elapse to re-proportion who is getting what contract. And when I refer to contract, I mean cap hit.

Up until the very recent batch of RFAs, players knew that they were cost controlled on ELC and then had to play out their limited RFA contracts until they could get to UFA. It was known you had to overpay for UFAs because not only is there now a competitive free market for them, but I felt it was kind of understood you were paying for them to get their payday that they couldn't get in their cost-controlled years. They still had good value to give to the team, but it wasn't for the entirety of the contracts being handed out during free agency. It felt more like... we will sign player X at 28 years old for 8 years for his first giant contract that helps him recoup some money lost in his peak-RFA years in exchange for tail end years that won't be nearly as good (and of course, other teams will as well).

But the game has continued to trend much younger. The young North America team really put a stamp on that. The peak years are getting younger and younger and RFAs are demanding the money after elite ELC years, and this is coexisting with still giving out bloated UFA contracts. This is the problem. If player Y follows the arc of being elite at 23-26 and they get paid like it during those years, then their UFA contract should be relatively lower given that their production will drop during the life of the contract.

It used to be known that while you wanted to score a big UFA or two (maybe), your team had to be filled with cost-controlled contributors in order to have a competitive team fit under the salary cap. Now teams are in a crunch because the very recent/current UFAs are still looking to be paid like the UFAs of the past while the new RFAs want to get paid for right now since the game has trended younger. Take Andrew Ladd for example. He was a 50-60 point player in his mid-20s and after his ELC made 1.5MM for 2 years, than 2.5MM for 1 year, and then 4.4MM for 5 years. Then he hits UFA and gets his biggest contract of 5.5MM for 7 years when he turns 31 and not surprisingly, he puts up his worst season (31 points in 78 games) and continues to fall off a cliff in production and the ability to stay healthy, which is not surprising for a player approaching his mid 30s in today's NHL. So, not counting the ELC years, he made roughly 27.5MM over 7 years when he was 23-30 years old and then signs a contract for 38.5MM over 7 years when he's 30-37. Even if he didn't get incredibly injured (which is not something to be ignored when handing a contract out to someone that old), there's no way he would outperform his peak mid-20s years by as much as his contract demanded he should.

While Ladd is an extreme because 30-year-olds can still be much more productive than Ladd has been (and he's been injured) and I wouldn't exactly have called him an elite RFA at all, but it still paints a picture. There was an understanding that Ladd was going to get paid when he hit UFA, even if it wasn't by the Islanders, and now that has to change. If Ladd wanted to get paid for his most productive years, then he would need to take a pay cut in his 30s so his career earnings stay the same but the make-up of a contending team can work.

Hopefully the market corrects itself. I don't think it's unfair that a player like Matthews or Marner wants to get paid for the contribution they are making right now. But then they can't get paid like the old batch of UFAs once they hit those years, otherwise they'll need to be dumped for the then-current batch of contributing RFAs.

 

[The Macho King]

I understand that they want more money in their contracts, but team success should be more important IMO.

When teams stop making millions and millions of dollars marketing these individuals.

 

[CupofOil]

Players want market value just like everybody in every occupation, nothing wrong with that. Would you take less money to benefit your company? Of course not. Players want market value so whatever the market dictates, that's what they want.

In Marner's case, Matthews 11.5M over only 5 years set the bar a lot higher than it would have been otherwise so here we are.

I'll say one thing. I'd much rather break the bank for a core RFA based on what they will be than break the bank for a high end UFA based on what they used to be.

 

[Crede777]

Players want market value just like everybody in every occupation, nothing wrong with that. Would you take less money to benefit your company? Of course not. Players want market value so whatever the market dictates, that's what they want.

In Marner's case, Matthews 11.5M over only 5 years set the bar a lot higher than it would have been otherwise so here we are.

I'll say one thing. I'd much rather break the bank for a core RFA based on what they will be than break the bank for a high end UFA based on what they used to be.

When there is only one team bidding for your services, their offer is the market price.

 

[Sanchise90]

There's no situation here that needs to be addressed. It is just the shifting of market economics. Players are realizing that the best way to maximize earnings in a career is

1) To get a bump in pay on a 4-5 year bridge deal and;
2) To hit UFA around 26-27

The argument of "he should sign for less to win a Cup" should have died after Marian Hossa tried that with the Red Wings, only to watch the team he left win the Cup. You can't guarantee a Stanley Cup, hell Tampa was the locks of all locks this year and look what happened. What you can guarantee though is the money you make on a contract. It isn't players that need to adapt, its teams that overpay guys for declining production and plugs that need to adapt.

The only way I can see it changing in terms of RFA holdouts is if NHL GM's stop being p***yes and actually offer sheet players and force teams into making decisions.

 

[Peasy]

Own livelihood > team success all day everyday...get that money.

What will help set up your family and future generation better? a worthless cup and a ring worth ~25k or an extra million every year for your contract term? Maybe a pay cut would be more common if players got greater bonus for each playoff round they reach than the current bonus structure in place.

Can't spell dumbass without Dubas, he really made his own bed here...and ****ed every other GM along the way. It seems like he learned from his mistake based on the way he's handling Marner but time will tell. Hopefully contracts like Werenski's will help return to the norm.

So you first say you're all about the players getting as much money as they can but then go and blame a GM for giving players money.

Which one is it? Are you for players getting paid or not.

 

[Peasy]

Chiarelli won more playoff series in Edmonton than Dubas has in Toronto...

Chiarelli ran the Oilers for over 3 full seasons and left them in a state of disaster. Dubas has run the Leafs for one. I hope that one playoff win was really worth it.

 

[CH]

Players are realizing that the best way to maximize earnings in a career is

1) To get a bump in pay on a 4-5 year bridge deal and;
2) To hit UFA around 26-27

Players are NOT realizing this. That is why so many quality RFAs are poised to holdout through training camp and the start of the season. Players look at these bridge deals and wonder what happens if something happens such as an injury and I never reach this UFA deal.

It hurts the NHL as a whole to have its young talent holding out.

If a player is (one of) the best player (s) on his team he should be paid as such. Why should a 30 year old player who was a UFA get paid more than you if you are better than he is?

 

[Madap]

The cup is in fact worthless, it has no monetary value. I guess the value of winning the cup is $350k in winnings + 25k ring so you could argue the cup is worth around 375k.

I would take 1-2m x 5 years if I were Marner. Money over cup, easily.

And as far as getting traded to a random team, that would not happen. Marner controls his destiny, no team will trade for Marner not knowing whether or not he'll sign. The ball is entirely in his court here.

Monetary value does not equal worthless. I'm sure everyone has objects that hold sentimental value to them. Objects that you would not sell for their equivalent monetary value.

Fair enough, I wouldn't.

I meant getting traded to another team who is willing to give him his desired contract. As you said, he only cares about the money right? Shouldn't be a problem where he goes if he's getting paid.

 

[Madap]

Players want market value just like everybody in every occupation, nothing wrong with that. Would you take less money to benefit your company? Of course not. Players want market value so whatever the market dictates, that's what they want.

In Marner's case, Matthews 11.5M over only 5 years set the bar a lot higher than it would have been otherwise so here we are.

I'll say one thing. I'd much rather break the bank for a core RFA based on what they will be than break the bank for a high end UFA based on what they used to be.

Not everything is about money though. When you get to talking about the difference between 80 and 90 million, there are studies that show that the increased money does not always equate with the same increase in happiness. I would absolutely take less money if it meant I enjoyed myself at work more. How much less? Depends on the situation obviously, but its really not as black and white as everyone is making it out to be.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Not everything is about money though. When you get to talking about the difference between 80 and 90 million, there are studies that show that the increased money does not always equate with the same increase in happiness. I would absolutely take less money if it meant I enjoyed myself at work more. How much less? Depends on the situation obviously, but its really not as black and white as everyone is making it out to be.

These aren't regular decisions about work like you or I make, deciding between 35 and 70 hours a week or a 5 or 75 minute commute. These players will have awesome lives no matter wherever they play, so they might as well suck out every dime they can during their short careers.