Discussion in 'Toronto Maple Leafs' started by Warden of the North, Feb 5, 2019.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Auston Matthews and the ripples of a controversial contract
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.
Over the last 5 games played since his new contract on February 5th Matthews has accumulated 4G/7P.
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!
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?
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?
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?
$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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Separate names with a comma.