Proposal: Viability in Trading Mantha to New Jersey or Buffalo for their 1st Rounder?

[Steve Yzerlland]

Mantha is not projectable in the way LeBron is.
The best numbers Mantha has are last year's. But we've never seen him produce that over the course of a season.

LeBron was an example of paying on potential not a talent comparison.

 

[Gniwder]

You never offer long term contracts to players with motivational issues. While Mantha isn't anywhere close to Semin, I wouldn't consider a 7 year deal unless it came at a discount. 4 or 5 year deal is what I'm thinking.

 

[Hen Kolland]

You never offer long term contracts to players with motivational issues. While Mantha isn't anywhere close to Semin, I wouldn't consider a 7 year deal unless it came at a discount. 4 or 5 year deal is what I'm thinking.

Mantha hasn’t shown motivational issues in years. This is such an exhausted narrative.

 

[MBH]

Mantha hasn’t shown motivational issues in years. This is such an exhausted narrative.

Totally disagree.
18-19
First 16 games 3-2-5 -13

Middle 17 games 3-3-6

Through 59 games he was sitting at 17-16-33.

And then he got ridiculously hot with Bertuzzi/Larkin, going 8-7-15 in his final 8 games to make his stats look good.

The year before he went 14-15-29 over the final 61.

So over the course of those 120 games he went 31-32-62.
Cut that number by a third...
That's a 20-20-20 pace over a 1.5 seasons.

Since then: 51 games: 26-29-55

The difference between A&B is staggering.
Makes him a risky bet.

 

[Henkka]

Didn't see that phase on his career as a motivational issue.

Either way, differencies in production many times has nothing to do with motivation.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

Totally disagree.
18-19
First 16 games 3-2-5 -13

Middle 17 games 3-3-6

Through 59 games he was sitting at 17-16-33.

And then he got ridiculously hot with Bertuzzi/Larkin, going 8-7-15 in his final 8 games to make his stats look good.

The year before he went 14-15-29 over the final 61.

So over the course of those 120 games he went 31-32-62.
Cut that number by a third...
That's a 20-20-20 pace over a 1.5 seasons.

Since then: 51 games: 26-29-55

The difference between A&B is staggering.
Makes him a risky bet.

This is so tired. “I’m going to take manthas lowest scoring stretches and combine them, then I’m going to take his highest scoring stretches and combine them, then I’m going to act shocked that one is low and one is high” omg it’s nuts, how crazy! Math stuff!

 

[Gniwder]

Didn't see that phase on his career as a motivational issue.

Either way, differencies in production many times has nothing to do with motivation.

The guy has the ability to single handedly take control of a game like elite players do, but won't do it on a consistent basis which is why he's not elite. I'm not saying the team needs to trade him, I just wouldn't consider anything over 5 years unless there's a steep discount.

In fact, the team is completely unwatchable without him, we know that from the past season. Back to the original question, I'd only trade Manta for 2 1st rounders or equivalent. I don't see a player guaranteed to be better than Mantha other than Alexis. Even that's not a sure thing.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Totally disagree.
18-19
First 16 games 3-2-5 -13

Middle 17 games 3-3-6

Through 59 games he was sitting at 17-16-33.

And then he got ridiculously hot with Bertuzzi/Larkin, going 8-7-15 in his final 8 games to make his stats look good.

The year before he went 14-15-29 over the final 61.

So over the course of those 120 games he went 31-32-62.
Cut that number by a third...
That's a 20-20-20 pace over a 1.5 seasons.

Since then: 51 games: 26-29-55

The difference between A&B is staggering.
Makes him a risky bet.

So you have no problem segmenting individual seasons from years ago to less than a quarter of a season and use that as proof of motivational issues, but you refuse to count this most recent season as valid, when he played over half a season at damn near a point per game rate with very few and very short periods of dried up production.

You argue in bad faith on most things. It’s not worth it. You would have had no problem with saying AA fixed his inconsistencies and problems after his first, and likely only, 30 goal season because he actually made it to an arbitrary milestone.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Yeah, wait, wasn't the narrative that we shouldn't look at Mantha's last 82 games and see that he's got 27 goals and 55 points because we shouldn't splice two years together?

It isn't a motivation thing with Mantha. I mean, a jump up later in every season could indicate a gelling of whatever line he is on. Was he getting shifted around a bunch early in years as Babcock/Blashill were hitting the puree switch on lines?

Further... wouldn't being put on a line with the two other best players on the roster who you have chemistry with result in a jump in stats?

Look at AA in 18-19 as well. Games 61-76, his last 15 games. 8 goals, 7 assists. Prior to that outburst, he was 22g, 17a for 39 points or not really altogether that much better.

Mantha doesn't have motivation issues. If the stats went the other way like he had an amazing batch of games early in the 18-19 season and then fell off and puttered around at a weak pace for all of 19-20, THAT would paint him as a risk to me. The stats as you lay out are a reason to try to lock him up right now as opposed to a reason to be scared about doing so. Unless you're trying to point "CONTRACT YEAR" as the reason why he perked up. To me, it looks like he continued his ramp up from the end of 18-19 into 19-20 until Muzzin dumped him.

His "injury prone" nature is due to him getting in fights that he shouldn't be in. Seriously, stop looking for reasons to degrade what he is as a player and push some narrative that he's a risky sign. Mantha is far more skilled than any player that the Wings have given a long term contract, with the exception of Larkin, in the past decade. Signing him at a reasonable AAV will give him more value if you want to trade him, not less. Think Tatar. We got a 1, 2, and 3 for Tatar after extending him to a very reasonable deal. We weren't getting that for RFA, looking for a raise Tatar.

 

[MBH]

So you have no problem segmenting individual seasons from years ago to less than a quarter of a season and use that as proof of motivational issues, but you refuse to count this most recent season as valid, when he played over half a season at damn near a point per game rate with very few and very short periods of dried up production.

You argue in bad faith on most things. It’s not worth it. You would have had no problem with saying AA fixed his inconsistencies and problems after his first, and likely only, 30 goal season because he actually made it to an arbitrary milestone.

For 120 straight games - Mantha scored at a 20-20-40 pace.
Over the next 51 games, he scored at an 88-point pace.

That's a pretty clear delineation.

Your point about AA or "my bad faith" is clearly not worth responding to.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Mantha hasn’t shown motivational issues in years. This is such an exhausted narrative.

His game-to-game consistency still leaves something to be desired.

 

[Hen Kolland]

For 120 straight games - Mantha scored at a 20-20-40 pace.
Over the next 51 games, he scored at an 88-point pace.

That's a pretty clear delineation.

Your point about AA or "my bad faith" is clearly not worth responding to.

This is my point about you arguing in bad faith.

2016-17: 60 games, 23-26-49 pace
2017-18: 80 games, 25-25-49 pace
2018-19: 67 games, 31-28-59 pace
2019-20: 43 games, 31-42-73 pace

There’s some rounding error in the math, but that’s full season, stop. Full season, stop. Full season, stop. Full season, stop.

There’s no subjectivity of manipulating windows of game played to achieve your desired result. It just frames that year over year, he has progressed in production.

You would have my ear if you could point to inconsistency in his year over year production, but you can’t. Like when you brought up Zucker and his year by year production rates go up, and regress, and go up, and regress. Season by season there’s no evidence of continued development.

That’s not Mantha. His production rates go up, and then go up, and then go up again.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

This is my point about you arguing in bad faith.

2016-17: 60 games, 23-26-49 pace
2017-18: 80 games, 25-25-49 pace
2018-19: 67 games, 31-28-59 pace
2019-20: 43 games, 31-42-73 pace

There’s some rounding error in the math, but that’s full season, stop. Full season, stop. Full season, stop. Full season, stop.

There’s no subjectivity of manipulating windows of game played to achieve your desired result. It just frames that year over year, he has progressed in production.

You would have my ear if you could point to inconsistency in his year over year production, but you can’t. Like when you brought up Zucker and his year by year production rates go up, and regress, and go up, and regress. Season by season there’s no evidence of continued development.

That’s not Mantha. His production rates go up, and then go up, and then go up again.

And the point about AA isn’t worth responding to because he can’t. It’s a clear picky choosy bias.

 

[odin1981]

Why are you all hung up on stupid milestones? He had 24 goals twice. Would he really be a better player and everyone would back off if he had literally one more goal in either of those years? Or if he scored two points in either year? This just seems like everyone who wants to trade him is coming up with "reasons" why it is a good idea that aren't founded in a whole lot. No, you don't hold onto him at all costs or sign him for 8-9M for 8 years. But there is far more to gain from Detroit holding onto Anthony Mantha than there is to trading him. Sure, offer him around. But if the trade doesn't make you remarkably better, I don't see the benefit. If I get Alexander Holtz for him (#7OA), I don't understand what I'm doing. Chances are Holtz might cap out as Anthony Mantha. But guess what, Anthony Mantha has a 100% chance of being Anthony Mantha. So why on Earth would I trade a sure thing to get to a certain level for a guy who's top end is in the neighborhood of the guy I already have?

Everything about Mantha's game presages it aging pretty well (if he can stop throwing hands). He's a smooth skater, but his game isn't predicated on being a burner. He's a big body, but his game isn't predicated on being a bruiser. His best skills are the type of skills that age like wine (hands, sniping wrist shot).

Scoring 50 points or 25 goals does not make you a star player, it makes you a tweener first line-second line winger.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Scoring 50 points or 25 goals does not make you a star player, it makes you a tweener first line-second line winger.

Common Misconceptions: How Much Should That Forward Score?

 

[odin1981]

Common Misconceptions: How Much Should That Forward Score?

So by taking that article he is a poor 1st line right wing to a good second line which is exactly why I said he is a tweener.

 

[Hen Kolland]

So by taking that article he is a poor 1st line right wing to a good second line which is exactly why I said he is a tweener.

Except his career production rates are 26.5 goals and 28 assists for 55ish points, which places him closer to an average first winger.

And over the past two seasons 30.6 goals and 33.5 assists for 64 points per 82 game season, which would suggest he’s between a good and average first liner.

Or you can continue to ignore reality.

Edit: of course that last comment is me being facetious. I know you will choose to ignore the stats as they are laid out.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

So by taking that article he is a poor 1st line right wing to a good second line which is exactly why I said he is a tweener.

Where did I say star?

I'm advocating paying him 8x6.5. 6.5M is a salary for a 1st/2nd line tweener. I'm saying if he's holding out for 8 or 9M long term that I'm not interested in paying him that.

Mantha still clearly has upside left in his game and I'd rather pay him like a 1st/2nd line tweener and bank on him continuing to grow and I get a star in a couple years at a bargain than putter around and let him prove that he's a star and I'm then forced to pay him 10M+ if I want to keep him.

I'm saying that the return you'd realistically get for him right now (#7OA or a young top 4D at the probable top end) isn't worth trading him away for. Mantha looks like a very safe bet to extend because if you want to trade him in a year? He should still have damn good value if you sign him for a reasonable extension. If you want to trade him in 3 years? He should still have good value if you sign him to a reasonable extension. Sure, he's not completely without risk, but literally no player in hockey is without risk. Mantha at 6.5M isn't a slam dunk like Pastrnak (who shouldn't have accepted that contract he got) or MacKinnon (who shouldn't have accepted that contract he got, really) or etc. etc. But Mantha at 6.5M AAV if he would sign it is a perfectly valuable asset. And you have to remember, you're buying RFA years if you extend him too. That keeps the price a little lower.

 

[odin1981]

Except his career production rates are 26.5 goals and 28 assists for 55ish points, which places him closer to an average first winger.

And over the past two seasons 30.6 goals and 33.5 assists for 64 points per 82 game season, which would suggest he’s between a good and average first liner.

Or you can continue to ignore reality.

Edit: of course that last comment is me being facetious. I know you will choose to ignore the stats as they are laid out.

When has he scored 50+? The answer is never. Was he "on pace" to last year? Yes, but he did not produce that amount. Because he thought he was a tough guy and got dropped like a sack of crap and missed 30+ games.

 

[odin1981]

Where did I say star?

I'm advocating paying him 8x6.5. 6.5M is a salary for a 1st/2nd line tweener. I'm saying if he's holding out for 8 or 9M long term that I'm not interested in paying him that.

Mantha still clearly has upside left in his game and I'd rather pay him like a 1st/2nd line tweener and bank on him continuing to grow and I get a star in a couple years at a bargain than putter around and let him prove that he's a star and I'm then forced to pay him 10M+ if I want to keep him.

I'm saying that the return you'd realistically get for him right now (#7OA or a young top 4D at the probable top end) isn't worth trading him away for. Mantha looks like a very safe bet to extend because if you want to trade him in a year? He should still have damn good value if you sign him for a reasonable extension. If you want to trade him in 3 years? He should still have good value if you sign him to a reasonable extension. Sure, he's not completely without risk, but literally no player in hockey is without risk. Mantha at 6.5M isn't a slam dunk like Pastrnak (who shouldn't have accepted that contract he got) or MacKinnon (who shouldn't have accepted that contract he got, really) or etc. etc. But Mantha at 6.5M AAV if he would sign it is a perfectly valuable asset. And you have to remember, you're buying RFA years if you extend him too. That keeps the price a little lower.

I misread your post, my apologies. I am use to seeing people say he is a star. And it really grinds my gears. I think 8 year's is too long. I would offer 6 at 6.5 but look to move him before he hits the 30's regression year's you often hit with bigger players since he already has injury issues. So look to move him at around age 29-30 or so.

 

[Hen Kolland]

When has he scored 50+? The answer is never. Was he "on pace" to last year? Yes, but he did not produce that amount. Because he thought he was a tough guy and got dropped like a sack of crap and missed 30+ games.

Yeah, people like you are seriously not worth conversations with. Here, let me make this so simple that there is no way that anyone can get confused.

When Mantha is on the ice, he is a good first line winger.

Have fun trying to figure out how to disprove that with more straw men.

 

[odin1981]

Yeah, people like you are seriously not worth conversations with. Here, let me make this so simple that there is no way that anyone can get confused.

When Mantha is on the ice, he is a good first line winger.

Have fun trying to figure out how to disprove that with more straw men.

What is his max production? 2 year's of 48 points. Those are facts. The only time I am willing to round up production is when someone plays 70+ games and is say 2-3 points short of ppg. And that is because .95+ I can round up.

I am not rounding shit up for half a season played. He very well could have just been running hot and cooled off to 55-65 range. But never, not once prior in his career did he produce 50+. On pace means f all.

Mantha's season last year was the epitome of a statistical outlier. Untill he proves it was a trend, it means nothing.

 

[The Real Pastafarian]

I don't think you can look at what a player has produced in the past when determining his value. You shouldn't look at the past at all, only future potential. Past performance is not necessarily a predictor of future returns. Augment those stats with the eyeball test.

Paying players for the past -- that's how you end up paying Abdelkader over $4 million a year for 7 years right after he "scored" 25 goals because Datsyuk banked 19 of them off of Abby's big butt and into the net, just to prove he could. I think Holmstrom put Datsyuk up to it, probably they had a bet going and Holstrom ended up having to eat a jar of lutefisk when he lost.

Mantha has more potential than anyone on this team. If you watch him for 5 or 10 games, it's obvious: In terms of potential, he's top 50 in the NHL. Fortunately, we should be able to get him at a discount, say, $6.5 million a year on a long-term deal, thanks to COVID (every cloud has a silver lining). Whether we trade him or not after that, that's up to Yzerman and how far from decent he thinks we are. I know I'll shed a tear the day we trade him to Montreal, and we better get 2 first rounders for him, or the equivalent of that in terms of prospects.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

What is his max production? 2 year's of 48 points. Those are facts. The only time I am willing to round up production is when someone plays 70+ games and is say 2-3 points short of ppg. And that is because .95+ I can round up.

I am not rounding shit up for half a season played. He very well could have just been running hot and cooled off to 55-65 range. But never, not once prior in his career did he produce 50+. On pace means f all.

Mantha's season last year was the epitome of a statistical outlier. Untill he proves it was a trend, it means nothing.

This is disingenuous though.

2 years of 48 points. 1 year, he did it in 80 games. The next year, he missed 13 games, so he had 48 points in 67. I mean, by the very nature of those statements, he scored at a higher rate in the 67 game season than he did in the 80 game season.

If you graph out his rate of scoring year by year, it's going up. 48 in 67 is more impressive than 48 in 80, unless you assume he would do absolutely nothing for 13 games. Then the next year (19-20), he scored 38 points in 43 games. He isn't hopping around in production. I mean, mathematically, this is what he's done PPG. Not P/60 or or cutting off seasons into different chunks or whatever.

Rookie cup of coffee (15-16): 0.3 PPG
Sophomore year (16-17): 0.6 PPG
3rd year (17-18): 0.6 PPG
4th year (18-19): 0.72 PPG
This year (19-20): 0.88 PPG

This isn't on pace, this is what he performed. He played this many games and this is his points divided by the number of games he played. If that number goes up, he's averaging more production every single game. Now, it's not to say it will necessarily continue to go up, but it just seems wrong to say it's a statistical outlier and not a steady pace of improvement. In 19-20, he scored at least every 3 games. It wasn't like he had a couple binges and then long dry spells.

 

[odin1981]

This is disingenuous though.

2 years of 48 points. 1 year, he did it in 80 games. The next year, he missed 13 games, so he had 48 points in 67. I mean, by the very nature of those statements, he scored at a higher rate in the 67 game season than he did in the 80 game season.

If you graph out his rate of scoring year by year, it's going up. 48 in 67 is more impressive than 48 in 80, unless you assume he would do absolutely nothing for 13 games. Then the next year (19-20), he scored 38 points in 43 games. He isn't hopping around in production. I mean, mathematically, this is what he's done PPG. Not P/60 or or cutting off seasons into different chunks or whatever.

Rookie cup of coffee (15-16): 0.3 PPG
Sophomore year (16-17): 0.6 PPG
3rd year (17-18): 0.6 PPG
4th year (18-19): 0.72 PPG
This year (19-20): 0.88 PPG

This isn't on pace, this is what he performed. He played this many games and this is his points divided by the number of games he played. If that number goes up, he's averaging more production every single game. Now, it's not to say it will necessarily continue to go up, but it just seems wrong to say it's a statistical outlier and not a steady pace of improvement. In 19-20, he scored at least every 3 games. It wasn't like he had a couple binges and then long dry spells.

There is way too much variability over just 40'sh game's to project a 80 game season. And he has no past experience of doing so. He hits a 10-15 game skid which he has done in the past and his PPG drops to a reasonable .65-.70 range. In addition to never hitting that level before let alone .88 PPG.