Rumor: Will the Leafs pull the trigger on Alex Pietrangelo this off-season?

[Cappuccino]

Kane and Rantanen are good comparables; maybe the best. Marner's contract fits in properly with theirs.

Kane was the equivalent of 9m x 5 years.
Rantanen was 9.25m x 6 years.
Marner was 10.9 x 6 years.

Rantanen signed after Marner's contract was signed. I don't see Rantanen getting 9.25M if Marner would have gotten 9.3M....

 

[Dekes For Days]

Rantanen signed after Marner's contract was signed. I don't see Rantanen getting 9.25M if Marner would have gotten 9.3M....

I imagine he would have gotten pretty much the same, because his contract is also consistent with Kane's. Kane was probably the primary comparable being used for both, since both negotiations were ongoing without knowing what the other was going to get. Marner at 9.3m would have been a crazy underpay.

 

[stickty111]

Now Carlo is going on the overdrive saying that


1.) Petro used to talk to him about what it’s like getting to play for the leafs (positive)

2.) now he has been talking to Petro and he is starting to wrap his head around leaving and that he has been considering the leafs.

3.) Carlo is shocked that it has gone this far. Petro is really coming to grips that he may not play in st L

Legion posted what Carlo said on Overdrive today.

 

[seanlinden]

No, it falls right where it should be at 5 years, because extended out to 8 years, that would put him just under McDavid's 13.6m, which is what he had earned based on both of their pre-signing production levels. Which is also consistent with where he should be relative to Malkin.

I'm talking about a 7-year deal for Matthews....

One that would mean he is under contract for every year that McDavid and Eichel are... in a given year, please tell me how you justify Matthews as more expensive than McDavid or more than ~$1.6m more expensive than Eichel?

Because that's exactly what's going to happen in the missing 2 years of Matthews deal.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I'm talking about a 7-year deal for Matthews....

One that would mean he is under contract for every year that McDavid and Eichel are... in a given year, please tell me how you justify Matthews as more expensive than McDavid or more than ~$1.6m more expensive than Eichel?

Because that's exactly what's going to happen in the missing 2 years of Matthews deal.

You have no idea what the next contracts will look like. Cap hits rise as the cap rises. You can't just take a contract signed years prior and arbitrarily decide that yours has to match the remaining term and fall below that absolute cap value. That's not how contracts and comparables work.

When McDavid signs his next deal, it will likely be higher than Matthews' next deal by more than the actual amount he is better than him, because the cap will have risen in those 2 years.

 

[seanlinden]

You have no idea what the next contracts will look like. Cap hits rise as the cap rises. You can't just take a contract signed years prior and arbitrarily decide that yours has to match the remaining term and fall below that absolute cap value. That's not how contracts and comparables work.

Contracts are signed with an expectation of the cap rising, or at least were, pre-COVID.

You don't think any guy coming off an ELC realizes that each UFA year he gives up is more valuable than the last?

I don't know what the cap will be in 2024-25, but I do know that both parties at the time of signing (Matthews & Dubas) expected that it would be well, well north of the $81.5m that it was when Matthews was signed.... $100m might be a reasonable guess. If both parties felt that Matthews AAV value for those 2 extra years would only be $11.6m, why not sign him for 7 years?

What I described is EXACTLY how contracts and comparables work beyond the stat sheet and excel documents. Matthews at $11.6m slots in perfectly between his 2 closest comparables -- McDavid & Eichel. In missing years 6 & 7, is a virtual certainty that he will make substantially more than $12.5m.... just like if McDavid only had a 6 year deal, he'd be looking at a lot more than $12.5m at that time.

So where's the "discount" for not tying up those extra UFA years? non-existent.

Where's the "discount" for getting a bonus structure even more favourable than McDavid's? non-existent.

If you want to use cap hit %, sure, but that only works when you're talking about the same term. If we had been talking an 8-year deal for Matthews, then yes, he'd deserve to be a little closer to McDavid, recognizing that in that 8th year, McDavid is going to be UFA making well north of $12.5m, and Matthews will still be stuck at say, $12m.

 

[Notsince67]

I really don't see marner - Kane.

One scores and scores big goals the other depends on scorers to earn his points.

Check kanes elc performance again. That is the comparable for an rfa contract

 

[Notsince67]

The Nylander contract is not bad. Top line, 30 + goal scorer.

Marner is not worth more than $6-7M tops. He is the most overrated player in the NHL. I really want to see him traded.

Sure. Lots of people who dont know squat about hockey says things like that

 

[Notsince67]

Marner's comparable IS NOT Patrick Kane.. PAtrick Kane was a UFA with 3 stanley cup rings. Marner had 1 great season alongisde John Tavares. His closest comparable -- Mikko Rantanen.

If you're looking for somebody that signed before Marner did -- Draisaitl & Aho are probably the guys you have to look at... and Aho had to do an offer sheet in Montreal to get his deal. Marner gets to play in his hometown.

Nylander's comparable was Nikolaj Ehlers. Contract kicked in later, but is a year shorter, and Nylander's probably a bit better, so something in the mid 6s for his 6 year term would have been right.

As for Matthews -- if wanted $11.5m -- it should have been 7 years. Match terms with Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel -- he's somewhere in between those 2 guys, so that's the right ballpark for him. If he was going to do 8 years, then I can see a justification for $12m.

Slow down Tex. You compare elc performances vs rfa contracts (% of cap) first. As for cups, there isnt a contract model in the world worth looking at that factors cups into a contract projection. That is just dumb talk by hockey casuals. Dont pay attention to that stupidity.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Contracts are signed with an expectation of the cap rising, or at least were, pre-COVID.

All contracts are signed with the expectation of the cap rising, but they are signed based on the cap at time of signing; not the cap at the time a comparable signed years prior.

In missing years 6 & 7, is a virtual certainty that he will make substantially more than $12.5m..

What he makes on his next contract is irrelevant. All that matters is the cap hit percentage, term, and production level at time of signing his post-ELC contract, and that all aligns just fine with McDavid, Malkin, Eichel, and everybody else, even when term is accounted for.

When McDavid signs his next deal, it will likely be higher than Matthews' next deal by more than the actual amount he is better than him, because the cap will have risen in those 2 years.

So where's the "discount" for not tying up those extra UFA years? non-existent.

It's not non-existent. If we were getting 6, 7, or 8 years of term, the contract would have been more expensive. You're probably looking at an extra ~600k for each extra year, which would put Matthews' contract at 8 years just under McDavid's cap hit percentage. We couldn't afford that and keep everybody around.

Where's the "discount" for getting a bonus structure even more favourable than McDavid's? non-existent.

1. Bonuses are mutually beneficial to the Leafs and the player.
2. Bonuses help account for our significant tax disadvantage.
3. McDavid got the large majority of his contract in signing bonuses too.

If you want to use cap hit %, sure, but that only works when you're talking about the same term.

No, it's used in every situation. Term needs to be accounted for, which will affect the cap hit percentage, but that doesn't mean you ignore cap hit percentages.

 

[ULF_55]

Check kanes elc performance again. That is the comparable for an rfa contract

marner signed a combo deal ... he is ufa at end.

he isn't worth it period.

 

[seanlinden]

All contracts are signed with the expectation of the cap rising, but they are signed based on the cap at time of signing; not the cap at the time a comparable signed years prior.

What he makes on his next contract is irrelevant. All that matters is the cap hit percentage, term, and production level at time of signing his post-ELC contract, and that all aligns just fine with McDavid, Malkin, Eichel, and everybody else, even when term is accounted for.

When McDavid signs his next deal, it will likely be higher than Matthews' next deal by more than the actual amount he is better than him, because the cap will have risen in those 2 years.

It's not non-existent. If we were getting 6, 7, or 8 years of term, the contract would have been more expensive. You're probably looking at an extra ~600k for each extra year, which would put Matthews' contract at 8 years just under McDavid's cap hit percentage. We couldn't afford that and keep everybody around.

1. Bonuses are mutually beneficial to the Leafs and the player.
2. Bonuses help account for our significant tax disadvantage.
3. McDavid got the large majority of his contract in signing bonuses too.

No, it's used in every situation. Term needs to be accounted for, which will affect the cap hit percentage, but that doesn't mean you ignore cap hit percentages.

Comparing cap hit %s (on date of signing) is a complete fallacy, despite the fact that is what CapFriendly lists. There is always a natural assumption of cap increase. If you want to compare cap hit % on the first year of the contract, that is certainly a valid way to do it -- but it needs to be done on equal terms -- otherwise you're not comparing apples to apples.

The cap rose from $79.5m in McDavid/Eichel's first year, to $81.5m in Matthews first year -- an increase of 2.5%, and likely less than what was reasonably expected. If you want to inflate McDavid & Eichel's contracts by 2.5% to use them as a comparable -- great. It becomes $12.8m and $10.2m. If we can agree that Matthews is 2/3 of the way between McDavid & Eichel, that puts his correct 8-year AAV at $11.93m. If you want to take off $600k in AAV for each additional year, that's probably not inaccurate. A 7-year deal puts him at $11.33, a 6 year deal at $10.7m, and 5 years at $10.1m.

Suggesting that his correct value on an 7 year deal is $12.8m, when over the same exact time period McDavid will earn $12.5, is ludicrous. Suggesting that Matthews 8-year AAV should be $13.4m, when it only lasts 1 year longer than McDavid, is equally ridiculous.

Regardless of how you slice it -- cap hit % for an 8-year deal, or equal-years-for-equal years -- Matthews AAV matches what he should have gotten for an 7 year deal, or maybe somewhere between a 7 and 8 year deal. Auston Matthews over the 8 years post-ELC is going to earn a lot more than Connor McDavid. The same will hold true for the 7 remaining years on McDavid's deal (if you just take AAV and ignore the frontloading element) -- and that simply isn't right when McDavid is the superior player.

With respect to bonuses, I believe Edmonton has just as bad a tax-situation as Toronto, and yes McDavid got 86% of his compensation in bonuses. Matthews got 94% of the bonuses. Yes, maybe it helps the team if they want to trade Matthews, but the reality is -- it also helps Matthews, and there should have been some sort of discount for that.

 

[Menzinger]

marner signed a combo deal ... he is ufa at end.

he isn't worth it period.

And thats the thing.

I like Marner a lot as a player and do think the Leafs can be successful even with his contract. BUT I have a hard time logically justifying why he should have the 2nd highest winger aav in the league.

The fact is, unless its like Ovie or prime Kovalchuk there are very few wingers who can have an on ice impact on par with a 1c or 1D.

 

[The CyNick]

I imagine he would have gotten pretty much the same, because his contract is also consistent with Kane's. Kane was probably the primary comparable being used for both, since both negotiations were ongoing without knowing what the other was going to get. Marner at 9.3m would have been a crazy underpay.

$9M x 8 years was the rumored offer from the Marner camp that Dubas turned down. Then it dragged on, and Marner saw the other deals and his price kept going up.

 

[Stephen]

I really don't see how Vegas can clear the cap space. Fleury appear to be receptive to a trade.

My theory is Vegas angle is the decoy in the Pietrangelo story in what has been a TSN and Sportsnet fueled recruitment of Pietrangelo to Toronto. TSN and Sportsnet, as we all know, are owned by the media giants that own the Leafs.

 

[Superstar]

Comparing cap hit %s (on date of signing) is a complete fallacy, despite the fact that is what CapFriendly lists. There is always a natural assumption of cap increase. If you want to compare cap hit % on the first year of the contract, that is certainly a valid way to do it -- but it needs to be done on equal terms -- otherwise you're not comparing apples to apples.

The cap rose from $79.5m in McDavid/Eichel's first year, to $81.5m in Matthews first year -- an increase of 2.5%, and likely less than what was reasonably expected. If you want to inflate McDavid & Eichel's contracts by 2.5% to use them as a comparable -- great. It becomes $12.8m and $10.2m. If we can agree that Matthews is 2/3 of the way between McDavid & Eichel, that puts his correct 8-year AAV at $11.93m. If you want to take off $600k in AAV for each additional year, that's probably not inaccurate. A 7-year deal puts him at $11.33, a 6 year deal at $10.7m, and 5 years at $10.1m.

Suggesting that his correct value on an 7 year deal is $12.8m, when over the same exact time period McDavid will earn $12.5, is ludicrous. Suggesting that Matthews 8-year AAV should be $13.4m, when it only lasts 1 year longer than McDavid, is equally ridiculous.

Regardless of how you slice it -- cap hit % for an 8-year deal, or equal-years-for-equal years -- Matthews AAV matches what he should have gotten for an 7 year deal, or maybe somewhere between a 7 and 8 year deal. Auston Matthews over the 8 years post-ELC is going to earn a lot more than Connor McDavid. The same will hold true for the 7 remaining years on McDavid's deal (if you just take AAV and ignore the frontloading element) -- and that simply isn't right when McDavid is the superior player.

With respect to bonuses, I believe Edmonton has just as bad a tax-situation as Toronto, and yes McDavid got 86% of his compensation in bonuses. Matthews got 94% of the bonuses. Yes, maybe it helps the team if they want to trade Matthews, but the reality is -- it also helps Matthews, and there should have been some sort of discount for that.

Yep, Matthews is overpaid for his term. Many GMs were really upset with Dubas resetting the RFA market on Matthews' contract...funny thing is, it looks like Dubas only ended up screwing his own team because it led to Marner wanting Matthews-money. In 4 years, Matthews will be demanding $14 million plus as a UFA.

 

[seanlinden]

Yep, Matthews is overpaid for his term. Many GMs were really upset with Dubas resetting the RFA market on Matthews' contract...funny thing is, it looks like Dubas only ended up screwing his own team because it led to Marner wanting Matthews-money. In 4 years, Matthews will be demanding $14 million plus as a UFA.

That is indeed the saddest part... the new economic reality / COVID will likely undo the damage that was done to the RFA market.

The real problem is that Dubas didn't and doesn't really have any "conviction" in what he does. When William Nylander held out, especially how long he did, he should have told him to shove it and find himself a new team.... not because that deal turned out to be bad, or crippling, but because he had to set an example for the other 2 -- that if they weren't going to buy in, they'd be on the way out for players who do.

He should have done both Matthews and Marner's deals the same summer that Nylander held out... and done so again with some conviction in his belief in these 3 guys. Marner could have likely easily been signed to a very similar deal to Leon Draisaitl. Matthews would have still looked at McDavid & Eichel as a comparable, so his cap hit may not have been any lower, but at least you would have gotten 7 years.

Marner was threatening with offer sheets from Columbus -- go ahead and do it. Sign an offer sheet to leave the Toronto Maple Leafs...see where your luck lies. I don't think for 1 second that Columbus was going to give him that kind of money, give up 4 first round picks, and only buy 2 UFA years. I also don't believe that they were going to give him a number in the 9s on a short term deal only to have the problem again in 2-3 years.

It's funny -- that lack of conviction could be the reason that the Leafs do sign Alex Pietrangelo. Doug Armstrong operates with conviction and all indications seem to be that the Blues are not prepared to give him substantial bonus money, make the contract buyout proof, or give him a full-length NMC.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the leafs doing all 3 of those things, but if you're going to do it -- it needs to come at a cost on the AAV front. Dubas has to create a culture where guys want to play here and want to take less to play here.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Comparing cap hit %s (on date of signing) is a complete fallacy

No it's not. Term must be factored in, but cap hit percentages are literally the only thing that matters. Raw cap hit values cannot be compared when signed at different times.

The cap rose from $79.5m in McDavid/Eichel's first year

The cap was 75m when McDavid and Eichel signed.

If you want to inflate McDavid & Eichel's contracts by 2.5% to use them as a comparable -- great. It becomes $12.8m and $10.2m.

The McDavid and Eichel contracts under an 81.5m cap would be 13.6m and 10.8m.

If we can agree that Matthews is 2/3 of the way between McDavid & Eichel

He wasn't. He was way closer to McDavid's level than that.

Suggesting that his correct value on an 7 year deal is $12.8m, when over the same exact time period McDavid will earn $12.5, is ludicrous.

McDavid signed earlier, under a different cap. ~12.8m on a 7 year deal places him in the proper place under McDavid's 13.6m x 8 equivalent contract.

Matthews AAV matches what he should have gotten for an 7 year deal

No, Matthews' AAV matches what he should have gotten over a 5 year deal, which is consistent with his comparables.

Auston Matthews over the 8 years post-ELC is going to earn a lot more than Connor McDavid.

1. You do not know what he will earn.
2. The younger a player is, the more a player will earn naturally over his career with a rising cap.
3. This ignores the rest of their contract years.

Matthews will sign 2 years earlier, which will theoretically increase his cost over McDavid temporarily, but it also means we will sign him under a lower cap than McDavid. Which means that when McDavid's contract comes due, he will make more in cap hit than the actual difference between the two at time of signing for the next 6 years after that.

With respect to bonuses, I believe Edmonton has just as bad a tax-situation as Toronto

No, they don't.

and yes McDavid got 86% of his compensation in bonuses. Matthews got 94% of the bonuses.

That's a pretty negligible difference.

 

[Dekes For Days]

$9M x 8 years was the rumored offer from the Marner camp that Dubas turned down. Then it dragged on, and Marner saw the other deals and his price kept going up.

That was pure speculation 6 months after the fact that has never been supported by anything, and is inconsistent with everything else we know about the negotiation. The price for Marner went up because he went on to put up one of the best pre-signing seasons in the entire cap era.

 

[stickty111]

Good time to bring this up for anyone concerned about what Elliote said.
Once again I trust Carlo considering his relationship with Petra

 

[seanlinden]

No it's not. Term must be factored in, but cap hit percentages are literally the only thing that matters. Raw cap hit values cannot be compared when signed at different times.

The cap was 75m when McDavid and Eichel signed.

The McDavid and Eichel contracts under an 81.5m cap would be 13.6m and 10.8m.

Like I said, cap hit % at time of signing is a complete fallacy. You need to compare 1st-year-of-the-contract cap hits. When players sign during the 2nd year, both team and player do so in full knowledge that the cap is expected to go up between 2% and 5% before the contract kicks in.

The also do so, especially with young players, in anticipation of what they are likely to perform at in their 3rd year.

Suggesting otherwise is accusing any player agent of being grossly incompetent. They may not know what the number is going to be, but they do know the rough range.

He wasn't. He was way closer to McDavid's level than that.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Matthews is the same age as Eichel/McDavid.... and signed an identical term 8 year deal right around the time that McDavid & Eichel signed theirs.

If Eichel is $10m, and McDavid is $12.5m, what's Matthews? To me, $11.5, $11.6 sounds just about right.

What McDavid will earn is irrelevant. McDavid signed earlier, under a different cap. ~12.8m on a 7 year deal places him in the proper place under McDavid's 13.6m x 8 equivalent contract.

It's absolutely relevant. We are in a competitive league that requires a team to maximimize contribution to cap dollar. If an inferior player is getting more money over the same time/term as a better player, that's a problem for your team.

No, Matthews' AAV matches what he should have gotten over a 5 year deal, which is consistent with his comparables.

1. You do not know what he will earn.
2. The younger a player is, the more a player will earn naturally over his career with a rising cap.
3. This ignores the rest of their contract years.

Matthews will sign 2 years earlier, which will theoretically increase his cost over McDavid temporarily, but it also means we will sign him under a lower cap than McDavid. Which means that when McDavid's contract comes due, he will make more in cap hit than the actual difference between the two at time of signing for the next 6 years after that.

You keep saying this.. I keep illustrating how this is not the case. You seem to be pretending like both Eichel & McDavid signed just assuming that there would be absolutely no cap increase between their 3rd years and 4th years -- something that has literally never happened in a non-lockout year.

I don't know how much Matthews will earn, but what I do know is that at the time(s) all 3 of these deals were signed, GM and player would have all assumed that the cap will be substantially higher than it was at the time of signing -- $100m+ a reasonable target.


Connor McDavid "earns" in his last 7 years a total of $87.5m (again, ignoring frontloading elements). Matthews contract is worth $58.7m, a difference of just under $30m. Do you really believe that based on pre-covid world, where the cap is likely to be $100m, that Matthews couldn't quite easily acheive $15m/season on a 2 year deal?

With respect to what their future long term deals are, Matthews is going to be a 26 year old UFA, meaning you've gotta pay for ALL PRIME years. McDavid is going to be 29. I'd go as far as saying that if they're both signing 8 year deals, Matthews will cost just as much if not more, simply because McDavid will have a drop-off expected. Then a 34-year old Matthews will still be up for a pretty solid deal.

No, they don't.

That's a pretty negligible difference.

It's still there. Matthews literally maxxed out the possible bonuses he can get on the deal - $750k a year in salary. McDavid at least earns an average salary close to $2m.

 

[Stephen]

Let’s get back on topic. This is a Pietrangelo speculation thread and not for rehashing Dubas cap management gripes.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You need to compare 1st-year-of-the-contract cap hits.

No, that is information that is not known at time of signing. Edmonton and Buffalo did not know the cap was going to increase 4.5m the next year, and there is no reason for them to assume that it would. Even if we want to assume they factored in moderate cap increases, which there is no evidence of, that is countered out by the fact that Matthews was signed under an official 83m projection.

Signing early is a trade-off. The player signs based on a cap that is likely lower, but they get early financial security despite proving their quality of play over a smaller sample.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Matthews is the same age as Eichel/McDavid.... and signed an identical term 8 year deal right around the time that McDavid & Eichel signed theirs. If Eichel is $10m, and McDavid is $12.5m, what's Matthews?

Based on their pre-signing levels, Matthews would be around 12.25m probably. Potentially more depending on how you value goals/primary points. McDavid was a better point producer. Matthews was a better primary point and goal producer.

If an inferior player is getting more money over the same time/term as a better player, that's a problem for your team.

That's just the reality of a rising cap. As already explained, this will be made up when McDavid's 3rd contract is signed. Matthews would theoretically only have a higher cap hit in 2 years of his career.

no cap increase between their 3rd years and 4th years -- something that has literally never happened in a non-lockout year.

The cap increased 0.1m between 08/09 and 09/10. The cap also stagnated between 2011-2014 during the CBA changes. The cap very rarely went up by 4.5m, and there was no reason to believe it would jump that much in the following season.

I don't know how much Matthews will earn

Then stop speaking like you do. The 3rd contracts have nothing to do with their worth on the 2nd.

Connor McDavid "earns" in his last 7 years a total of $87.5m (again, ignoring frontloading elements). Matthews contract is worth $58.7m, a difference of just under $30m. Do you really believe that based on pre-covid world, where the cap is likely to be $100m, that Matthews couldn't quite easily acheive $15m/season on a 2 year deal?

They don't stop being players after 7 years. As already explained, Matthews will sign 2 years earlier, which will theoretically increase his cost over McDavid temporarily, but it also means we will sign him under a lower cap than McDavid. Which means that when McDavid's contract comes due, he will make more in cap hit than the actual difference between the two at time of signing for the next 6 years after that.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Let’s get back on topic. This is a Pietrangelo speculation thread and not for rehashing Dubas cap management gripes.

Was already replying when you posted... I'll stick to Pietrangelo from here on out.

 

[Antropovsky]

Legion posted what Carlo said on Overdrive today.

Seems weird that Pietrangelo would be ok with his buddy talking about this on the radio.... seems like a negotiation ploy to me.