Confirmed with Link: Matthews new deal Pt 3

[ORRFForever]

Kessel didn’t best Matthews’ rookie season until he was 24.

I LOVE Kessel but he’s never been as dominant, especially 5v5 as Matthews.

Fair enough.

 

[LeafsNation75]

He is?

I would not be surprised if, long term, Kessel had the better career.

So far during his career Kessel has not yet had a 40 goal season and that's an accomplishment Matthews was able to get in his rookie season.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

End of the day, this is a bad deal. Matthew's hasnt even been the best player on the Leafs this year, yet alone the league (where hes paid as if hes the second best). Everyone can pull out whatever statistic they want, but until Matthews pulls out a 100 point season from his belt, this will be a bad deal.

Incorrect. You are essentially penalising him for lack of ice time and injury. Yet he produces at a rate on top of the league for the usage he gets.

 

[DanM]

Incorrect. You are essentially penalising him for lack of ice time and injury. Yet he produces at a rate on top of the league for the usage he gets.

True, but injuries still hinder careers, and waste money if the player is 70% of what he should or could be.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

True, but injuries still hinder careers, and waste money if the player is 70% of what he should or could be.

They do, especially early ones when the player needs development before they are elite. But Matthews produced at an elite level since he first stepped on the ice. Never has a player that produced like Matthews when on the ice on their ELC been penalised for having injuries or lack of ice time that generates higher production such as more power play time. Crosby wasn’t penalised, eichel wasnt, mcdavid wasn’t for his injuries. They all get paid for what they do on the ice with the ice time that they have. If you wanted Dubas to change the landscape of signing such that Matthews would be paid for his raw point totals as opposed to how good of a hockey player he is you’re basically just asking him to get rid of probably the best player we’ve ever had, and someone else would happily take him at this price and for good reason.

 

[Mess]

@Mess can definitely put the feather in his cap for those ones. IIRC he was essentially betting on Dubas to get bent over in both the Matthews and Nylander negotiations and he was definitely right.

While I suspected it was going to be bad, truth be told its turning out even worse than I imagined.

When I figured Leafs 3 amigos will all get more than comparatives, I was also thinking Dubas would be getting the max term of 8 years in the process.

To overpay and only buy 1 year of UFA status is definetly a real disappointment outcome.

If Matthews is getting close to McDavid, it was paramount that it was for 8 years not 5 and making him a 26 year old UFA, with a full NMC in the last year so the Leafs can't even deal him is they can't come to terms.

 

[Leafsman]

Not sure about that anymore. He looks like trash on the ice. He looks like a no skill floater, zero compete.

I definitely agree that he has looked very unengaged lately and really needs to pick up the compete level. One can not write off everything else he's done though because off a recent slump.

He needs to have a consistent line. I would like to see Kappy-Matthews-Nylander put together and left together.

He also needs the PP issues addressed. They need a threat from the point so the pk-ers can't just collapse down low and focus on Matthews/Marner. I'd like to see the PP shaken up a bit - Reilly/Kadri moved to the 2nd unit, Muzzin/Nylander moved up or just have two dmen on the 1st unit with Reilly and Muzzin.

 

[hockeywiz542]

Auston Matthews and the ripples of a controversial contract

"We had to presume that with Connor [McDavid] being locked up, and with Auston as the next big deal, that it would have influence on the marketplace," Matthews' agent, Judd Moldaver, told ESPN this week. "So, it's like Spider-Man: 'With great power comes great responsibility.' Ultimately, my job is his happiness, but there's no question his deal is going to be looked at [by other players]."

It obviously affects the Maple Leafs the most, because whatever contract Matthews signed would influence everything from their cap management to their personnel decisions. This is what made Matthews' negotiation different from that of McDavid's: The latter is an extraterrestrial talent whose team was going to pay him anything he asked to build around him, for he is the franchise; the Leafs, at least in the eyes of general manager Kyle Dubas and team president Brendan Shanahan, see Matthews as a franchise player but not as the franchise. Keeping him, and keeping him away from offer sheets, was vital. But it wouldn't come at the expense of the contender they were constructing.

The term that Matthews and his representatives -- agents Moldaver and Jeff Jackson of Wasserman (which also represents McDavid) as well as his father, Brian Matthews -- wanted was philosophically different from what the Leafs were determined to get.

"Of course, he coveted an eight-year term. He's committed to the Toronto Maple Leafs, and that would have been something he would have loved to have seen through," Moldaver said. "But we got to a point where, based on the complicated cap puzzle the Leafs have and in a hard-cap system, it became increasingly obvious that an eight-year term to serve his interests and the Leafs' interests just wasn't going to be right. And this was discussed amicably. Essentially, we looked at everything from three to eight years."

The three-year option was a non-starter because that would have been too much risk for Matthews and too high an average annual value for the Leafs to cover that risk. The eight-year term would have also yielded a cap hit that was too high, as it would have gobbled up additional unrestricted free-agent seasons.

"This is just the nature of the way deals are in hockey. If you want the longer term, you're also taking out more of their prime. The AAV rises. Certainly, that was the intention from the beginning on Auston's side. They were focused on that," Dubas said. "We're trying to balance keeping this together with contending and not having to delete parts from it. We're very grateful they were willing to move off their desired term and maintain some flexibility."

So, the term became five years. Matthews sold it as "a lot of guys have done five years before," which isn't necessarily accurate. Every first overall pick from 2008 through 2016 has signed a second contract of six or more seasons, save for two: Nail Yakupov, who is no longer in the NHL, and Steven Stamkos of the Tampa Bay Lightning, who signed a five-year deal worth 11.66 percent of the cap in 2011 before following it with an eight-year deal in 2016 to avoid free agency, worth 11.64 percent of the cap (a trajectory that Matthews seems to be on).

 

[Notsince67]

Players play with injuries all the time. Not saying he's definitely injured, but this logic doesn't really work.

He isnt hurt. He has just been listening to the pundits about how special his shot is and focuses on that. What makes Matthew's great is what makes Tavares great....being hard on the puck. When those guys control the puck, good luck taking it from them. JT is consistent because he hunts the puck down. Until recently, AM wasn't. AM skills are more than shooting and I believe he has just began remembering that.

 

[magicmitchmarner]

Over the last 5 games played since his new contract on February 5th Matthews has accumulated 4G/7P.

 

[drfunc]

With the dust settled I'm happy that AM wanted the 8 year term even though it didn't happen. He's generational and we're lucky to have him.
Here's to Matthew's retiring a leaf with multiple cups along side Reilly, Marner, Tavares, Nylander, Kadri, Muzzin, etc etc! The future is bright and I'm loving this ride already. Go Leafs Go!

 

[Jay Cee]

Shaking off the haters of the contract..

Nah dude, you're mistaken. That's the move he made on Dubas before he inked his deal.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Nah dude, you're mistaken. That's the move he made on Dubas before he inked his deal.

Matthews deal is a great deal.

What are you going on about?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Auston Matthews and the ripples of a controversial contract

What's controversial about it?

Well... I know it's panned league-wide, was called "incompetent" by an nhl executive, and created tension with at least one other player agent...

but besides for all that, leaf fans (and only leaf fans) keep telling me it's an excellent contract. The leaf fans (and only leaf fans) couldn't be wrong, could they?

 

[4thline]

but besides for all that, leaf fans (and only leaf fans) keep telling me it's an excellent contract. The leaf fans (and only leaf fans) couldn't be wrong, could they?

Show me three quotes where anyone called it excellent

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Show me three quotes where anyone called it excellent

Well, the very post right above my post called it a "great deal". Is that close enough?

 

[Al14]

Matthews deal is a great deal.

What are you going on about?

$11.634M AAV for 8 years would have been a great deal!

$11.634M AAV for 5 years is just an okay deal, if not a slight overpayment.

JMHO.

 

[4thline]

Well, the very post right above my post called it a "great deal". Is that close enough?

Touche.

But do you really think the majority of people you argue with think that it's a great contract?

Or would you say that more people say that it's a tolerable overpayment and it's great that we have such a fantastic player, and just find your hyperbolized negativity a tad ridiculous?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Touche.

But do you really think the majority of people you argue with think that it's a great contract?

Or would you say that more people say that it's a tolerable overpayment and it's great that we have such a fantastic player, and just find your hyperbolized negativity a tad ridiculous?

I'd say calling it a "tolerable overpayment" is a hyperbolized positivity that I find a tad ridiculous.

But, also, there are quite a few posters here who actually consider it a good deal. Maybe not quite the majority... but pretty close.

 

[Jay Cee]

Matthews deal is a great deal.

What are you going on about?

It's a great deal for Matthews and players around the league. Agents have already openly mused the deal has them licking their chops.

I don't think it is a massive overpayment but it is anything but a great deal.

 

[4thline]

I'd say calling it a "tolerable overpayment" is a hyperbolized positivity that I find a tad ridiculous.

That means (by definition) means that you consider it an intolerable overpayment, which in context implies that his contract is so bad that it makes him a net negative as an asset, and that we would be better off without him.

Super

 

[Throw More Waffles]

That means (by definition) means that you consider it an intolerable overpayment, which in context implies that his contract is so bad that it makes him a net negative as an asset, and that we would be better off without him.

Super

I'm saying the overpayment is big enough (also affecting Marner's negotiation) that the leafs won't have the cap space to acquire the depth necessary to be legitimate contenders.

 

[4thline]

I'm saying the overpayment is big enough (also affecting Marner's negotiation) that the leafs won't have the cap space to acquire the depth necessary to legitimate contenders.

I'd advise that you check your math again, look at the cap breakdown of recent cupwinners (all had 8-9 roster spots filled with players that cost less than a million on their total cap) and review cap projections for the next five years.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

I'd advise that you check your math again, look at the cap breakdown of recent cupwinners (all had 8-9 roster spots filled with players that cost less than a million on their total cap) and review cap projections for the next five years.

Imagine Matthews is the 2nd best player in the world the next 5 years (behind McDavid). That's pretty much best case scenario. In 5 years, Matthews would sign a contract with around a $20 million aav. That means for 2 seasons, he'll be making almost DOUBLE what McDavid is making, as an inferior player. Again, that's the best case scenario. It's just a bad contract, no matter how you cut it.

 

[4thline]

Imagine Matthews is the 2nd best player in the world the next 5 years (behind McDavid). That's pretty much best case scenario. In 5 years, Matthews would sign a contract with around a $20 million aav. That means for 2 seasons, he'll be making almost DOUBLE what McDavid is making, as an inferior player. Again, that's the best case scenario. It's just a bad contract, no matter how you cut it.

You said it would prevent us from getting the depth required to even be considered a contender

Well no, because the only way you seem capable of cutting it is by direct comparison to McDavid's steal of a deal and then pouting that it's not as good