Blue Bombers Forum
September 19, 2019, 03:21:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 186 187 [188] 189 190 ... 197
  Print  
Author Topic: NHL Discussion (Other than Jets)  (Read 640850 times)
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28672



« Reply #2805 on: February 07, 2019, 09:48:08 PM »

He won't get a similar deal but it probably does get Laine some extra leverage, even if they aren't very comparable players.

It is odd they didn't go max term but Matthews probably refused or priced the contract so high it was untenable. Mathews is a first line centre and the face of the Toronto Maple Leafs. He can pretty much do what he wants -- certainly has a tremendous amount of bargaining power. The Leafs could have strung him along and tried to do the hardball RFA thing but that would have left them open for a souring of the relationship. You can do that with Jacob Trouba. You can't do that with the biggest reason for your franchise's change of fortunes.

I don't know what the appetite for a traditional bridge deal would have been, but for a guy like Mathews that it would have only increased the price after its conclusion. Now the Leafs have cost certainty when negotitating the rest of their young core. The landscape of the NHL is always changing. This might be one of those watershed moments.

I'm not sure how much more than $11million he would have gotten after a bridge... Bridge him for 3 at $5.5 mil, and you save 18million.  Then you can offer him 8 at $13, and be getting him for the same as $11mil now, and have him for 11 years.  No one can match 8 at $13... they can only give 7. 

Now, after 5, he is UFA so he gets max $ now, and full freedom at his prime.

Dubas screwed the pooch on this one IMHO...  he really got bent over. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7159



« Reply #2806 on: February 07, 2019, 11:12:29 PM »

I wonder if Matthews has aspirations to play at home for the Coyotes. By then AZ will be in the central so I wouldn?t look forward to playing them 5 times a year, but he could do wonders for getting butts in the seats in that sanitarium in the desert.
Logged
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13219



« Reply #2807 on: February 08, 2019, 01:13:36 AM »

I'm not sure how much more than $11million he would have gotten after a bridge... Bridge him for 3 at $5.5 mil, and you save 18million.  Then you can offer him 8 at $13, and be getting him for the same as $11mil now, and have him for 11 years.  No one can match 8 at $13... they can only give 7. 

Now, after 5, he is UFA so he gets max $ now, and full freedom at his prime.

Dubas screwed the pooch on this one IMHO...  he really got bent over. 

I don?t completely understand the whole process, but Toronto can just tell Auston Matthews, the face of their organization, that he gets to play for 5.5 per year?

That?s doesn?t make much sense to me.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7159



« Reply #2808 on: February 08, 2019, 01:27:10 AM »

I don?t completely understand the whole process, but Toronto can just tell Auston Matthews, the face of their organization, that he gets to play for 5.5 per year?

That?s doesn?t make much sense to me.

As far as I understand, taking a substantially less dollar figure for a short deal is how a bridge works. For Matthews, a more reasonable bridge deal would be more than 5.5M and for less than 3 years (2 absolute max IMO).

Otherwise I do kind of agree with aardvark that the signing structure is a bit underwhelming for the Leafs but like I said in my subsequent post, I have a hunch that was done by design.
Logged
Colton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13661


« Reply #2809 on: February 08, 2019, 05:43:27 AM »

I don?t completely understand the whole process, but Toronto can just tell Auston Matthews, the face of their organization, that he gets to play for 5.5 per year?

That?s doesn?t make much sense to me.

No, they can't.

It's not nearly as bad as a contract for the Leafs as Aardvark thinks it is. The Leafs would not be able to fit everyone they want on the team under the cap with the cap hit Matthews would have received over 8 years. This was a concession they needed to make to keep everyone together for the next 5 years.
Logged
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13219



« Reply #2810 on: February 08, 2019, 03:53:22 PM »

No, they can't.

It's not nearly as bad as a contract for the Leafs as Aardvark thinks it is. The Leafs would not be able to fit everyone they want on the team under the cap with the cap hit Matthews would have received over 8 years. This was a concession they needed to make to keep everyone together for the next 5 years.

That's absolutely how I understood this contract.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28672



« Reply #2811 on: February 08, 2019, 09:02:49 PM »

How does giving him more money while he is still a RFA slave "keep the team together"?   As to can they force him to play for less, ask Jacob Trouba about that.

If 5 years is the max this group can stay together, I guess maxing each of them now does that, but you better get all the cups you can in that span.  Because you are in a world of hurt after.

An interesting point brought up about AZ...  most players (like Taveres) would dream of playing for the Leafs, especially a competitive Leafs team.  Matthews is a part of the new generation, who's home is in the desert, and by 4 years from now, Matthews could be a rental player pickup that turns into the 'yotes franchise player...  and actually like it.

Matthews isn't giving Toronto any love by taking max money on a 5 year term...  but it just might be the only way to give Dubas 5 years to win a cup...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Colton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13661


« Reply #2812 on: February 08, 2019, 09:30:06 PM »

How does giving him more money while he is still a RFA slave "keep the team together"?   As to can they force him to play for less, ask Jacob Trouba about that.

If 5 years is the max this group can stay together, I guess maxing each of them now does that, but you better get all the cups you can in that span.  Because you are in a world of hurt after.

An interesting point brought up about AZ...  most players (like Taveres) would dream of playing for the Leafs, especially a competitive Leafs team.  Matthews is a part of the new generation, who's home is in the desert, and by 4 years from now, Matthews could be a rental player pickup that turns into the 'yotes franchise player...  and actually like it.

Matthews isn't giving Toronto any love by taking max money on a 5 year term...  but it just might be the only way to give Dubas 5 years to win a cup...

Matthews was not an RFA slave, he held an incredible amount of leverage in his situation due to the way the Leafs are currently structured. They absolutely could not afford to have him hold out next season. The bump in his year 1 cap hit after a hold out would have crippled the teams cap.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28672



« Reply #2813 on: February 09, 2019, 02:47:18 PM »

Matthews was not an RFA slave, he held an incredible amount of leverage in his situation due to the way the Leafs are currently structured. They absolutely could not afford to have him hold out next season. The bump in his year 1 cap hit after a hold out would have crippled the teams cap.

When would Matthews have become a UFA.  Usually, a player with RFA years left who gets a market value contract gives back UFA years.  Trouba got a 2yr, $6mil bridge deal, leaving him an RFA at the end, and then a $5.5 one year deal and is still an RFA at the end of that.   The team holds the cards while the player is RFA.

Giving a player market value while an RFA has to benefit the team backm which is why you can re-sign a playert for an 8 year term, but only sign a player for 7.  Give the team that drafted and developed the player an advantage in an extra year of UFA.  The Matthews deal costs the Leafs a huge amount of money, and they get 1 year of UFA with a no move clause in it, so if they thnik he is going to walk at the end, they can't even get anything for him. 

Other than locking him up for 5 years, which they already had 4 years of RFA anyways, I see absolutely nothing in this deal for the Leafs.  Dubas gave away the farm, and is potentially ending up with a handfull of beans...
When would
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21474



« Reply #2814 on: February 11, 2019, 01:27:32 PM »

When would Matthews have become a UFA.  Usually, a player with RFA years left who gets a market value contract gives back UFA years.  Trouba got a 2yr, $6mil bridge deal, leaving him an RFA at the end, and then a $5.5 one year deal and is still an RFA at the end of that.   The team holds the cards while the player is RFA.

Giving a player market value while an RFA has to benefit the team backm which is why you can re-sign a playert for an 8 year term, but only sign a player for 7.  Give the team that drafted and developed the player an advantage in an extra year of UFA.  The Matthews deal costs the Leafs a huge amount of money, and they get 1 year of UFA with a no move clause in it, so if they thnik he is going to walk at the end, they can't even get anything for him. 

Other than locking him up for 5 years, which they already had 4 years of RFA anyways, I see absolutely nothing in this deal for the Leafs.  Dubas gave away the farm, and is potentially ending up with a handfull of beans...
When would

RFA doesn't equate to being able to treat the player however the team wants and strong arm him into playing him less. Yes, you're going to be able to retain the player, but you still need to pay him what he's worth.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28672



« Reply #2815 on: February 11, 2019, 02:19:07 PM »

RFA doesn't equate to being able to treat the player however the team wants and strong arm him into playing him less. Yes, you're going to be able to retain the player, but you still need to pay him what he's worth.

As Jacob Trouba about RFA and getting paid "what you are worth"
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21474



« Reply #2816 on: February 11, 2019, 04:18:30 PM »

As Jacob Trouba about RFA and getting paid "what you are worth"

Do you advocate the Leafs should have played hardball and taken Mathews to arbitration, as the Jets did with Trouba?
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28672



« Reply #2817 on: February 11, 2019, 04:26:33 PM »

Do you advocate the Leafs should have played hardball and taken Mathews to arbitration, as the Jets did with Trouba?

No, the contract before, the bridge deal...

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/cap-comparables-jacob-troubas-bridge-deal-stacks/

Dubas has now created the standard for his GM tenure.  ELC and then Mega deal for 1 year FA protection.  If you are giving up the value years that the CBA gives you with the whole RFA / RFA with Arbitration, you'd better get back some UFA years in the deal.  Again, its why you can sign your guys for 8 years.  Overpay the RFA years, get some value on teh back end, or at least keep the player. 

Dubas did neither.  He gave up probably $20mil in salary overpay for the RFA years, and got back 1 year of UFA, and will have to pay full market in 5 years, if he retains Matthews at all.  In the meantime, he's in tough trying to fit everyone else under the cap.  25% eaten up in Matthews and Tavares... he is going to have a pretty tough time re-signing any other players going forward. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Colton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13661


« Reply #2818 on: February 11, 2019, 05:01:52 PM »

Dubas did neither.  He gave up probably $20mil in salary overpay for the RFA years

lmfao
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21474



« Reply #2819 on: February 11, 2019, 05:29:13 PM »

No, the contract before, the bridge deal...

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/cap-comparables-jacob-troubas-bridge-deal-stacks/

Dubas has now created the standard for his GM tenure.  ELC and then Mega deal for 1 year FA protection.  If you are giving up the value years that the CBA gives you with the whole RFA / RFA with Arbitration, you'd better get back some UFA years in the deal.  Again, its why you can sign your guys for 8 years.  Overpay the RFA years, get some value on teh back end, or at least keep the player. 

Dubas did neither.  He gave up probably $20mil in salary overpay for the RFA years, and got back 1 year of UFA, and will have to pay full market in 5 years, if he retains Matthews at all.  In the meantime, he's in tough trying to fit everyone else under the cap.  25% eaten up in Matthews and Tavares... he is going to have a pretty tough time re-signing any other players going forward. 

Every GM always pays "full market value" for pending UFAs. I would think he has a lot better chance to retain Matthews having signed him to landmark contract, rather than trying to force a bridge deal or gone down the RFA strongarm path. Aardvark, I don't disagree it's not a big contract or even a deviation from the norm. Typically, guys sign for 6-8. But it's not near as bad as you are making it sound. They needed Matthews. They needed cost certainty past two years. Matthews is worth the money for the Leafs.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 186 187 [188] 189 190 ... 197
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!