Confirmed with Link: [TOR] Matt Martin - 4 Years // 2.5M AAV

[Mad Brills*]

and 4: you said you're quitting the team, so why the heck do you care anyway?

I only said that if they signed russell to a stupid contract, which means they didn't learn from previous mistakes of different management groups.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Good lord

You need guys like Martin. And he can actually play pretty well. I feel like half this board has never played hockey before. Just with calculators.

I like matt martin. not at 2.5 million.

Leadership is important, but it's not something you overpay for when there are little justifications elsewhere to reason the means.

 

[Babcocks Marner]

1: no one said Lou is 100% right.
2: martin's contract is up 1 year after the leafs lose nearly 20m in cap space.

so

3: in this case. it will not.

and 4: you said you're quitting the team, so why the heck do you care anyway?

we lose 20mil next year, and 20 more the year after.

We will have 40+ in 2 years.

As it stands, Martin will be 1 of 5 contracts signed for his last year. It's really peanuts in the overall view.

 

[Bleed Blue and White]

The way I see it is this, there are 3 major ways to get a player on your team:

1) Draft them

2) Trade for them

3) Sign them.

The Isles actually did the first option with Martin, they drafted him in the 5th round in 2008, and he developed for a couple of years before joining the Isles full time in 2010/11. The benefit to drafting a player like this is you get them under team control and cheaper for the long term. The Isles got 2 years of NHL service out of his rookie contract, then another 4 with him having $1 million cap hit. That's good value. The downside to drafting a 4th line player is you have to wait for them to develop, not the mention that, given the reaction we got to our draft last weekend, a good number of people would likely have not been pleased with using a pick on a player like Martin (not that our opinion matters at all to management).

We could also trade for a player like Martin, the going rate would be... let's say, a 4th or a 5th round pick (if we're lucky), which is exactly like drafting him, except we don't have the development wait time. The issue there is obviously, you don't get the length of control that you do if you draft them. The same problem arises here as with actually drafting someone like Martin, a lot of people would likely complain that we traded a draft pick for a 4th line player.

The final option is signing a player like him in free agency, the downside is, you overpay a little, both in term and dollars, the upside is, you don't give up a draft pick and you don't have to wait for the player to develop.

The method of acquisition should generally depend on what your needs are at the time. If you have lots of cap space and could use the player in your lineup now (which we do/can), you sign the player and you overpay a little. If you have a surplus of players like him already in your lineup (which we don't), you can draft one and wait out his development. If you need an immediate, short/medium term boost and don't have a lot of cap space, you make a trade.

We chose the free agent route in my opinion because, we are not in a position at this time to be trading draft picks for 4th line players, we are still very long-term focused. Drafting a longer term replacement is probably something we should look at, but that doesn't help us now, so we used our greatest asset- long term cap flexibility and got a player in our lineup that we needed.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[sommervr]

Good lord

You need guys like Martin. And he can actually play pretty well. I feel like half this board has never played hockey before. Just with calculators.

Yeah I know what you are saying.

The young guys will absolutely love this guy. Big good looking alpha male type with a smoking hot gf. Played in the league for a while, knows the ropes, can play a bit and has their backs.

This guy is like the ultimate bro.

 

[The Magic Man]

The way I see it is this, there are 3 major ways to get a player on your team:

1) Draft them

2) Trade for them

3) Sign them.

The Isles actually did the first option with Martin, they drafted him in the 5th round in 2008, and he developed for a couple of years before joining the Isles full time in 2010/11. The benefit to drafting a player like this is you get them under team control and cheaper for the long term. The Isles got 2 years of NHL service out of his rookie contract, then another 4 with him having $1 million cap hit. That's good value. The downside to drafting a 4th line player is you have to wait for them to develop, not the mention that, given the reaction we got to our draft last weekend, a good number of people would likely have not been pleased with using a pick on a player like Martin (not that our opinion matters at all to management).

We could also trade for a player like Martin, the going rate would be... let's say, a 4th or a 5th round pick (if we're lucky), which is exactly like drafting him, except we don't have the development wait time. The issue there is obviously, you don't get the length of control that you do if you draft them. The same problem arises here as with actually drafting someone like Martin, a lot of people would likely complain that we traded a draft pick for a 4th line player.

The final option is signing a player like him in free agency, the downside is, you overpay a little, both in term and dollars, the upside is, you don't give up a draft pick and you don't have to wait for the player to develop.

The method of acquisition should generally depend on what your needs are at the time. If you have lots of cap space and could use the player in your lineup now (which we do/can), you sign the player and you overpay a little. If you have a surplus of players like him already in your lineup (which we don't), you can draft one and wait out his development. If you need an immediate, short/medium term boost and don't have a lot of cap space, you make a trade.

We chose the free agent route in my opinion because, we are not in a position at this time to be trading draft picks for 4th line players, we are still very long-term focused. Drafting a longer term replacement is probably something we should look at, but that doesn't help us now, so we used our greatest asset- long term cap flexibility and got a player in our lineup that we needed.

Just my 2 cents...

I wish these boards had a 'like' button. Anyway, I like this.

 

[yubbers]

with a smoking hot gf.

 

[Gary Nylund]

The way I see it is this, there are 3 major ways to get a player on your team:

1) Draft them

2) Trade for them

3) Sign them.

The Isles actually did the first option with Martin, they drafted him in the 5th round in 2008, and he developed for a couple of years before joining the Isles full time in 2010/11. The benefit to drafting a player like this is you get them under team control and cheaper for the long term. The Isles got 2 years of NHL service out of his rookie contract, then another 4 with him having $1 million cap hit. That's good value. The downside to drafting a 4th line player is you have to wait for them to develop, not the mention that, given the reaction we got to our draft last weekend, a good number of people would likely have not been pleased with using a pick on a player like Martin (not that our opinion matters at all to management).

We could also trade for a player like Martin, the going rate would be... let's say, a 4th or a 5th round pick (if we're lucky), which is exactly like drafting him, except we don't have the development wait time. The issue there is obviously, you don't get the length of control that you do if you draft them. The same problem arises here as with actually drafting someone like Martin, a lot of people would likely complain that we traded a draft pick for a 4th line player.

The final option is signing a player like him in free agency, the downside is, you overpay a little, both in term and dollars, the upside is, you don't give up a draft pick and you don't have to wait for the player to develop.

The method of acquisition should generally depend on what your needs are at the time. If you have lots of cap space and could use the player in your lineup now (which we do/can), you sign the player and you overpay a little. If you have a surplus of players like him already in your lineup (which we don't), you can draft one and wait out his development. If you need an immediate, short/medium term boost and don't have a lot of cap space, you make a trade.

We chose the free agent route in my opinion because, we are not in a position at this time to be trading draft picks for 4th line players, we are still very long-term focused. Drafting a longer term replacement is probably something we should look at, but that doesn't help us now, so we used our greatest asset- long term cap flexibility and got a player in our lineup that we needed.

Just my 2 cents...

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Liminality]

For the people who hated the deal, what would have been the most ideal contract for Martin?

Remember to consider that he's an FA and most likely had numerous teams offering for his services.

 

[hockeywiz542]

Newest Toronto Maple Leaf Matt Martin tells Blundell and Co. that he’s really looking forward to expanding his game and getting better under Mike Babcock, and molding in nicely with all the young talent in Toronto.

 

[senor martinez]

I'm so proud we got the player that'll make the biggest impact on the game the team and whole city. This will mean a fantastic difference on jersey sales too. Martin be a fan favourite in no time. With my leafs, you gots to have that tucker, clark, domi, corson thomas orr type. That character guy you mean. After that it doesn't even matter if a team loses or wins if the effort is there. Sports still are entertaiment. Nothing has changed after the time of the gladiators. People, human beings still want to see entertainment.

Huge player for us and I knew we was going for him just like TSN did their thang.

 

[Marmoset]

After a few days I feel the same way I felt when I heard about the signing. We can use a guy like him and the contract isn't a huge issue in terms of salary, but four years is too long. Players like him have a way of becoming AHL level talent fast, and we could end up paying for an AHL'er for those last two years. I'm not saying that will happen specifically here, but there is a reason most players of his type rarely get contracts that long.

I don't love that Polak signing either, but that's just a year and it's hard to have a serious issue with signing anyone for just one season.

 

[trellaine201]

Delete delete

 

[Ovate]

The way I see it is this, there are 3 major ways to get a player on your team:

1) Draft them

2) Trade for them

3) Sign them.

The Isles actually did the first option with Martin, they drafted him in the 5th round in 2008, and he developed for a couple of years before joining the Isles full time in 2010/11. The benefit to drafting a player like this is you get them under team control and cheaper for the long term. The Isles got 2 years of NHL service out of his rookie contract, then another 4 with him having $1 million cap hit. That's good value. The downside to drafting a 4th line player is you have to wait for them to develop, not the mention that, given the reaction we got to our draft last weekend, a good number of people would likely have not been pleased with using a pick on a player like Martin (not that our opinion matters at all to management).

We could also trade for a player like Martin, the going rate would be... let's say, a 4th or a 5th round pick (if we're lucky), which is exactly like drafting him, except we don't have the development wait time. The issue there is obviously, you don't get the length of control that you do if you draft them. The same problem arises here as with actually drafting someone like Martin, a lot of people would likely complain that we traded a draft pick for a 4th line player.

The final option is signing a player like him in free agency, the downside is, you overpay a little, both in term and dollars, the upside is, you don't give up a draft pick and you don't have to wait for the player to develop.

The method of acquisition should generally depend on what your needs are at the time. If you have lots of cap space and could use the player in your lineup now (which we do/can), you sign the player and you overpay a little. If you have a surplus of players like him already in your lineup (which we don't), you can draft one and wait out his development. If you need an immediate, short/medium term boost and don't have a lot of cap space, you make a trade.

We chose the free agent route in my opinion because, we are not in a position at this time to be trading draft picks for 4th line players, we are still very long-term focused. Drafting a longer term replacement is probably something we should look at, but that doesn't help us now, so we used our greatest asset- long term cap flexibility and got a player in our lineup that we needed.

Just my 2 cents...

Very well said.

No matter how we acquire a 4th line forward, there are going to be people who complain. The obvious solution is to only run 3 lines.

 

[EN4CER]

The way I see it is this, there are 3 major ways to get a player on your team:

1) Draft them

2) Trade for them

3) Sign them.

The Isles actually did the first option with Martin, they drafted him in the 5th round in 2008, and he developed for a couple of years before joining the Isles full time in 2010/11. The benefit to drafting a player like this is you get them under team control and cheaper for the long term. The Isles got 2 years of NHL service out of his rookie contract, then another 4 with him having $1 million cap hit. That's good value. The downside to drafting a 4th line player is you have to wait for them to develop, not the mention that, given the reaction we got to our draft last weekend, a good number of people would likely have not been pleased with using a pick on a player like Martin (not that our opinion matters at all to management).

We could also trade for a player like Martin, the going rate would be... let's say, a 4th or a 5th round pick (if we're lucky), which is exactly like drafting him, except we don't have the development wait time. The issue there is obviously, you don't get the length of control that you do if you draft them. The same problem arises here as with actually drafting someone like Martin, a lot of people would likely complain that we traded a draft pick for a 4th line player.

The final option is signing a player like him in free agency, the downside is, you overpay a little, both in term and dollars, the upside is, you don't give up a draft pick and you don't have to wait for the player to develop.

The method of acquisition should generally depend on what your needs are at the time. If you have lots of cap space and could use the player in your lineup now (which we do/can), you sign the player and you overpay a little. If you have a surplus of players like him already in your lineup (which we don't), you can draft one and wait out his development. If you need an immediate, short/medium term boost and don't have a lot of cap space, you make a trade.

We chose the free agent route in my opinion because, we are not in a position at this time to be trading draft picks for 4th line players, we are still very long-term focused. Drafting a longer term replacement is probably something we should look at, but that doesn't help us now, so we used our greatest asset- long term cap flexibility and got a player in our lineup that we needed.

Just my 2 cents...

What an excellent post. Wish all Leaf fans were this level headed...

 

[burpsalot]

Good lord

You need guys like Martin. And he can actually play pretty well. I feel like half this board has never played hockey before. Just with calculators.

With some of the comments on here, I think some individuals have proven your point accurate.

 

[KapG]

People are still complaining that 4 years is too long for a guy who is 27/28?

You guys are ****ing hilarious lmao

 

[deletethis]

With some of the comments on here, I think some individuals have proven your point accurate.

You two may be on to something. From another site:

I’m saying that your comment appears to have the purpose of excusing the move on the basis that it might turn out well. You know what? When I build a ******** D&D character, I don’t build a suboptimal character and then say, "you never know, I might just roll a 20 all the time."

"Never tell me the odds" was meant to show Han Solo’s flaws, not his stellar planning ability.

 

[Face Of Bear]

The question is, should you overpay for 4th liners? Should you give a long term commitment to someone who only brings intangible benefits to your team? Should you sign a long term contract with a player who's role is being phased out of the league because it isn't effective? Is our team any better with him? Are we any worse with any other random plug on the 4th line?

In the end, its a big commitment to someone who you hope intangibly makes your team better over the next 4 years. Will he? Wont he? Who knows. And who knows the degree to which he will/wont... So why would you want such a wild card like that signed long term?

It's a gamble to fill a hole we didn't have and for a role that you dont need to gamble on.

 

[taurine330]

The question is, should you overpay for 4th liners? Should you give a long term commitment to someone who only brings intangible benefits to your team? Should you sign a long term contract with a player who's role is being phased out of the league because it isn't effective? Is our team any better with him? Are we any worse with any other random plug on the 4th line?

In the end, its a big commitment to someone who you hope intangibly makes your team better over the next 4 years. Will he? Wont he? Who knows. And who knows the degree to which he will/wont... So why would you want such a wild card like that signed long term?

It's a gamble to fill a hole we didn't have and for a role that you dont need to gamble on.

What do you mean role is being phased out? Are they going to play with 3 lines instead?

 

[ACC1224]

You two may be on to something. From another site:

Thanks for that. What's a D&D character? A Dumb and Dumber type game?

 

[senor martinez]

Yeah I know what you are saying.

The young guys will absolutely love this guy. Big good looking alpha male type with a smoking hot gf. Played in the league for a while, knows the ropes, can play a bit and has their backs.

This guy is like the ultimate bro.

Martin and his girlfriend sydney are so good looking. They will bright a room up as soon as they arrive. Young sons will be looking like whats going on here this guy gets the ladies. Therefore they'll be following his rear end and martin will hit everything that moves y'all already knew that.

Our best deal in a long while. Big big impact on the ice this will be. Babcock has said a lot I'm sure

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Stamkos would have been a nice add but who cares it doesnt matter we're going to build our own core

Now (today) we are "building our own core". For months, as evidenced by scores of pages and hundreds of posts, we (not everyone, but lots here) were hot on the Stamkos trail. Fickle is the word that comes to mind.

 

[4thline]

The question is, should you overpay for 4th liners? Should you give a long term commitment to someone who only brings intangible benefits to your team? Should you sign a long term contract with a player who's role is being phased out of the league because it isn't effective? Is our team any better with him? Are we any worse with any other random plug on the 4th line?

In the end, its a big commitment to someone who you hope intangibly makes your team better over the next 4 years. Will he? Wont he? Who knows. And who knows the degree to which he will/wont... So why would you want such a wild card like that signed long term?

It's a gamble to fill a hole we didn't have and for a role that you dont need to gamble on.

This post is just rife with faulty assumptions leading to a bad premise.
The league has a limited talent pool that is about to get more stretched. A player that can contribute on a line that can successfully spend 10 minutes without the other team scoring wearing them down 200 feet from your net is an asset even if they never get a shot. A player that can tilt the ice and force turnovers is an asset even if they never score a goal. There's more to evaluating players than just classifying what line they play on, there are other elements to on-ice effectiveness than offensive ability, hence Uncle Leo being an international level player while being a "third-liner" with bricks at the end of his arms. I'm pretty excited to see what a guy like Martin can do in Babcock's structured forecheck, with a kid that can finish on the other wing.

The "intangibles" are nice bonus.

 

[ACC1224]

Now (today) we are "building our own core". For months, as evidenced by scores of pages and hundreds of posts, we (not everyone, but lots here) were hot on the Stamkos trail. Fickle is the word that comes to mind.

Whether Stamkos came or not they would still have continued to build a core.

I don't recall "lots" thinking he would be the "core", the vast majority just wanted them to add a great player.