- May 3, 2016
- 8,856
- 5,103
Marner is arguably a top 5 winger in the game, capable of 100 points and PK's. There are only maybe 15-20 players in the league that should be off the table for Marner.
Value of: Mitch Marner
- Thread starter Johnsie19
- Start date
you're full of it if you think they should trade him, he had 1 down season after 94 point season. But hey "gEt wHaT yOu cAn fOr hIm"
FOH
Theoretically, sure. In reality, probably not. Raw trade value doesn't necessarily mean anything when it comes to availability of trades. When the Oilers were looking to trade Hall for the best defenseman they could get their hands on, the league wasn't very forthcoming. Structure, both positional and financial, is just as important as the collection of talent. The Leafs making Marner available would be evidence of that.
I wouldn't dismiss the quantity packages being suggested here. They may be an accurate reflection of what other teams can actually afford to give up. That's not to say the Leafs should or would trade him in that type of trade, mind you.
Teams that move the best player in the deal rarely win trades...huge huge gamble for Leafs management. Same goes for Nylander moving him for D is also big time risky and will be the deciding factor on judging Dubas.
Rants Mulliniks
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2008
- 23,071
- 6,135
Cotton
Registered User
- May 13, 2013
- 9,120
- 5,611
Blues dont want marner cotton. 11mil marner is not worth more than 5.5 parayko lol. Good luck with that
Cotton
Registered User
- May 13, 2013
- 9,120
- 5,611
It’s a Marner thread, If you don’t want him then why are you even posting.
Notsince67
Papi and the Lamplighters
- Apr 27, 2018
- 16,057
- 11,250
Nice try. Marner started putting a 90+ point rate in January before JT got there and after he moved up from the third line to play with kadri. But dont let facts affect what you say.
Notsince67
Papi and the Lamplighters
- Apr 27, 2018
- 16,057
- 11,250
Yikes. Parayko is decent but he doesnt crack the top 15 dmen in the league. Leafs dont trade a Marner who is controlled for 5 more years for Parayko who has 2.
Notsince67
Papi and the Lamplighters
- Apr 27, 2018
- 16,057
- 11,250
That is just bs. He was paid full value by the leafs so they lost out on their rfa leverage. Panarin is paid 11.6mm and Marner is way ahead where he was at this age. Marner will look like a bargain compared to him in a couple of years. No team signs a 90+ point player for less than 9mm.
Where did I mention a single thing about JT? All I said was that when Marner was asking for 9.5m he was coming off a 60 some point season. What did I say that is incorrect there?
goonybird
Young boy expert
- Jul 9, 2015
- 4,766
- 3,238
Not sure why Marner getting shit on here when he's outscored Matthews every season except (barely) this past season. Toronto gave Matthews a similar contract, so Marner obviously going to ask for the same deal and he even settled for less!
I don't know who mentioned it first, and maybe if it was a Blues fan they shouldn't have, that is correct. But no. Marner isn't worth Parayko. Not even close. Parayko had the highest TOI in the series on a Stanley Cup winning team. Marner gets the book thrown at him every year in the first round of the playoffs or even earlier.
It's like Bob Myers said in the Twitter Video that Kyle Dubas liked (link below). In the playoffs, your first move is gone. If they hear you can't hit a curveball away, you're getting a curveball away every pitch.
Give me a blue-liner who can stand at the back, stop everything that comes his way, and play heavy minutes every day of the year over a winger whose only ability is to score. Parayko played 27 minutes a game in the finals. That's basically half the game. Half the game that I put my guy out there and he eats up everything that comes his way. If a winger like Marner plays 20 minutes and scores 1 point every game in the series, he leaves the series "PPG", it looks like he's done fantastic because look he's scoring at a point per game pace. By a scoring winger's metrics, "PPG" is good. But if your team just scores 1 goal every game then I'll beat you 2-1, and then 2-1 again, and then 2-1 in OT, and then 2-1 again. Because if I have one stud defenseman playing half the game, and another stud defenseman playing the other half of the game, you got one scoring line that's great by my defensemen will make sure your other lines can't do jack. And how many games have the Leafs lost 3-2, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1 OT, 5-1, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 2-0, 3-0. Leafs have 6 goals in 4 games in past 4 elimination matches. And maybe in those 4 games this winger or that winger is "PPG", but what does that matter for, that's 1.5 goals per game, you give up 2 goals and the game is over.
Look at the teams in the conference finals. They've got stables full of workhorse defensemen. Even look at the teams out in the 2nd round. Same story. Some of the wingers on the teams remaining can't score to save their lives. No forwards on the Stars are PPG. No forwards on the Golden Knights are PPG. Only one forward, a winger, on the Islanders, Bailey, is PPG, the next best winger is Beau with 14 points in 20 games, so not close. Even Tampa has only one winger and one center above PPG. But they have defensemen you can put out on the ice for a third of a game, and more often than not the other team won't score once, or play him half the game, and he will surrender no more than 1 goal. That's value.
Term of control is often relevant. But I'd rather have a stud defenseman for 2 years who could be part of an elite top 4, that collectively could play 85% of the game, than have a winger for 5 years who has nothing but the same trick that other teams will shut down with their elite top 4s. Who will give me one point a game, which is just enough to make him look good and just short of being enough to win games.
It's like Bob Myers said in the Twitter Video that Kyle Dubas liked (link below). In the playoffs, your first move is gone. If they hear you can't hit a curveball away, you're getting a curveball away every pitch.
Give me a blue-liner who can stand at the back, stop everything that comes his way, and play heavy minutes every day of the year over a winger whose only ability is to score. Parayko played 27 minutes a game in the finals. That's basically half the game. Half the game that I put my guy out there and he eats up everything that comes his way. If a winger like Marner plays 20 minutes and scores 1 point every game in the series, he leaves the series "PPG", it looks like he's done fantastic because look he's scoring at a point per game pace. By a scoring winger's metrics, "PPG" is good. But if your team just scores 1 goal every game then I'll beat you 2-1, and then 2-1 again, and then 2-1 in OT, and then 2-1 again. Because if I have one stud defenseman playing half the game, and another stud defenseman playing the other half of the game, you got one scoring line that's great by my defensemen will make sure your other lines can't do jack. And how many games have the Leafs lost 3-2, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1 OT, 5-1, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 2-0, 3-0. Leafs have 6 goals in 4 games in past 4 elimination matches. And maybe in those 4 games this winger or that winger is "PPG", but what does that matter for, that's 1.5 goals per game, you give up 2 goals and the game is over.
Look at the teams in the conference finals. They've got stables full of workhorse defensemen. Even look at the teams out in the 2nd round. Same story. Some of the wingers on the teams remaining can't score to save their lives. No forwards on the Stars are PPG. No forwards on the Golden Knights are PPG. Only one forward, a winger, on the Islanders, Bailey, is PPG, the next best winger is Beau with 14 points in 20 games, so not close. Even Tampa has only one winger and one center above PPG. But they have defensemen you can put out on the ice for a third of a game, and more often than not the other team won't score once, or play him half the game, and he will surrender no more than 1 goal. That's value.
Term of control is often relevant. But I'd rather have a stud defenseman for 2 years who could be part of an elite top 4, that collectively could play 85% of the game, than have a winger for 5 years who has nothing but the same trick that other teams will shut down with their elite top 4s. Who will give me one point a game, which is just enough to make him look good and just short of being enough to win games.
Petrus
Registered User
It's worse in hockey...
The difference between the regular season and postseason in basketball pales in comparison to the difference in hockey.
Petrus
Registered User
You keyed in on one sentence he said.
That’s not what Golden State’s President is actually talking about. He is talking about versatile players that could essentially do multiple things on the court: superstar players that play a variety of roles.
Hockey is very team oriented and has more specialized positional requirements. One great player in hockey will not simply get you a win; unlike basketball where it is a superstar oriented sport.
Marner type players are as critical to success as a Parayko type players. The real issue is about balance. You need to have both not one over the other to be successful.
Not really a variety of roles. A variety of functions. He's not saying that players who can play the 2 and the 3 are more valuable that players who only play the 2. He's not saying that a guard who can also play power forward is more valuable. He's not so much talking about players who can play different positions as players who have many facets to their games are more valuable than players who only bring a limited number of facets to their games. Someone can drive, and can shoot jumpers, and can shoot free throws, and can defend.
This is absolutely true in hockey as well. We're starting to see the difference between positions become blurred more and more. Defensemen will frequently jump up in the attacking zone, and now some teams even allow both defensemen to jump up in the attacking zone, and not merely momentarily but for extended periods of play, passing in between each other and other low forwards. What this means is that increasingly, centers and even wingers are asked to defend the point. To defend against the break. This on top of the fact that a center in the defensive zone is essentially a third defenseman. He will mark players around the net, he will fight for position in front of the net, he will clear pucks off the front of the net, his responsibility is to be involved in every battle for the puck around all the different areas of the boards. He is asked to block shots. Finish checks on cycling forwards, etc. That's why center is traditionally valued higher than winger. Not that some wingers are not good defensively. But the winger is typically far less active in his own zone. He usually marks a man at the point, and battles for pucks only within his area of coverage. Defensemen do everything a center does in the defensive zone, they man the point in the offensive zone. If you have a defenseman with a powerful shot that's really nice, he could generate some tips or rebounds. This is why, historically, player values have been Center > Defenseman > Winger.
It's because of this variety of functionalities that wingers are traditionally valued less. Some championship teams have fantastic wingers. Others have significantly less notable wingers. Even take the 2015 Stanley Cup. What name comes mind? Well Patrick Kane of course. However, in the final series vs. Tampa, the players with the most ice time were Duncan Keith (~30 mpg), Brent Seabrook (~26 mpg), Nik Hjalmarsson (~24.5 mpg), and Johnny Oduya (~23 mpg). Toews was 5th with 20 mpg. Patrick Kane also played. He scored 3 points in 6 games. Same as Shaw, and Saad, and Richards, and Sharp. He did his role, absolutely. But did the Hawks win because of his offensive brilliance? No. The games they won, they won them 2-1, then 2-1, then 2-1, then 2-0.
If Marner were some highly-multifunctional winger, then you might think a lot more. If he was terrific at winning pucks in battles, and he was an incredible PKer, and he also was a prolific scorer like he is, then you'd think hard. At it is, however, teams that face Toronto can basically just say "Marner will get his point per game, but as long as our defense is better than their defense, we can allow that and still win." He's a winger paid like a center. But he's not a center, and the only thing that he does excellently that centers do is score. Which is nice. But 11 million dollars nice? Well that depends on your value system. I think for Dubas, who liked the video above, it is worth it. For me, it's not.
Parayko’s in that range. He’s definitely top-30, and probably top-20. Definitely top-10 in terms of defensive impact, too.
With that said, I wouldn’t trade Marner for him.
Petrus
Registered User
I see functions and roles are the same. Bottom line versatility is key in basketball.....
You just described what Marner is. He plays the tough matchups, blocks shots, he PKs, he is the primary puck carrier, facilitates and drives play.
His best comparison is actually Patrick Kane, without the goal scoring. But I would also argue that he is better defensively than Kane.
Petrus
Registered User
The Blues will not trade Parayko not because Marner is not a good player but because they have nobody that will fill the gaping hole left by Parayko.
Similarly, Toronto will not trade if they are not able to adequately fill the gap that Marner would leave behind.
Fatass
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 22,121
- 14,043
Notsince67
Papi and the Lamplighters
- Apr 27, 2018
- 16,057
- 11,250
When was that exactly? The year before his contract was up, he was 69 points and the later half of the year was at an over 90 point rate after he got off the third line. By all reports, he was asking around 8.5 for an early signing. Nothing is accurate with your statement
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Skelleftea AIK @ Rogle BK - Skelleftea leads series 2-1Wagers: 2Staked: $125.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-