SprDaVE
Moderator
- Sep 20, 2008
- 51,546
- 32,305
We can defend up to a 10.565 and ice a 22 man roster. Stressful year but doable. Problem is that extra 3 grand within the range would force us to make detrimental roster moves or lose him for 1st+1st+2nd+3rd. That's a ballsy offersheet that makes no friends league wide, spits on the Aho deal and makes life very interesting for the people with high end RFA's.
More likely to be something lower that we can handle but don't want to pay or something higher/ more term with 4 1sts attached.
The Aho deal wasn't logical, in amazed he signed it that quickly.If you go that high, it has to be minimum 7 years to me. I just can't see how it makes any sense to go 5 years and go 2M more than Aho. It's illogical.
6 years, I top out at 10M. 5 years, 9.5M ish... and so forth.
The Aho deal wasn't logical, in amazed he signed it that quickly.
Mitch is an easy match up to 4 firsts. After that it gets questionable.
The Aho deal wasn't logical, in amazed he signed it that quickly.
Mitch is an easy match up to 4 firsts. After that it gets questionable.
If you go that high, it has to be minimum 7 years to me. I just can't see how it makes any sense to go 5 years and go 2M more than Aho. It's illogical.
6 years, I top out at 10M. 5 years, 9.5M ish... and so forth.
The Aho deal wasn't logical, in amazed he signed it that quickly.
Mitch is an easy match up to 4 firsts. After that it gets questionable.
We can defend up to a 10.565 and ice a 22 man roster. Stressful year but doable. Problem is that extra 3 grand within the range would force us to make detrimental roster moves or lose him for 1st+1st+2nd+3rd. That's a ballsy offersheet that makes no friends league wide, spits on the Aho deal and makes life very interesting for the people with high end RFA's.
More likely to be something lower that we can handle but don't want to pay or something higher/ more term with 4 1sts attached.
**** just got interesting, if it's enough to get Marner to sign an offersheet it's not going to be an easy decision to match imo
I'd think it's going to be a weighty offer or why bother after the Montreal debacle?
Really depends where the negotiation is framed. If it's 10x8 arguing against 10x5 and a gm it's all over but the crying, and offersheet could lose us the battle but not hurt the war.
Jeez I'd love to know where the negotiation stands.
I think we've got a pretty clear idea of where the Leafs are/were with 10m x 8, 8.5 x 5 etc. the 8x2 bridge comment skews things, but that was pre Aho, so who knows. But I completely agree with your scale. 10x6, 9.5 x 5 (want to avoid) 8-8.5 x 3. It's high relative to Aho but it's manageable and get's it done. It's possible that Dubas has drawn a line at that Aho scale and the only way Marner moves into the Sprdave scale is through offersheet. Great if so.
But is Marner at the reported 10 x 5 or the reported "pay me like Matthews"?
If your putting in the offersheet it either has to force the Leafs to make trades to fit him under or is so poisonous they just dont want to match
Anything else seems pointless to me, 10M×5 Is to easy to match imo
My Guess since Dubas has essentially set his salary; there will be no 8 year deal. A 2 year bridge or 4 year extended bridge seems most likely.
It's all relative, 10m forces us to run a 22 man roster with only 390k in free space (and it might not even count since it's LTIR)
It would suck until Marner breaks 100 pts. Then we will all be talking about the bargain contract. Fyi...i expect 100 pts at any money. The kid has a legacy to build.If you go that high, it has to be minimum 7 years to me. I just can't see how it makes any sense to go 5 years and go 2M more than Aho for the same term. 6 years, I top out at 10M. 5 years, 9.5M ish... and so forth.
Ideally, 7 years and 10.16M cap hit. He gets 1M less than Matthews, 2 extra years, and a huge amount of "respect". I could live with a 5 year 10M deal to get it over with... but... it would suck.
We still match that though, if your going to put one in at least throw one in you think could stick, coming in just under the 4 1sts threshold but still forces the Leafs to trade guys would be the go I'd have thought