|
|
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - pmrules
1
« on: October 07, 2019, 04:04:53 PM »
Gonna be a bit peeved if they win the lottery as a result.
No way they'll still be fine*.
* said a Matt Murray fantasy owner
ahhahahaha
At least they still have Phil Kes...ohhh
2
« on: October 07, 2019, 11:46:46 AM »
Let me try another way.
Stacked PP1 has a 20% chance of scoring.
Not so stacked PP2 has a 10% chance of scoring.
If PP1 gets off the ice around 1 minute if they don't score, then the coach is inherently giving them about 50/50 split in ice time. That is my issue...you are giving PP1 and PP2 equal opportunity to score in terms of ice time, yet there is a significant difference in skill. My solve is that you either have to balance the skill OR over weight on the ice time allocations to PP1 (i.e. they don't get off at 1 minute...they get off at 1:30 or so).
The numbers you are looking at are absolute and will be different because of either the PP1 or PP2 scoring (which of course will happen). Its inherent in those numbers that PP1 will have more time on the ice (as I showed above).
3
« on: October 07, 2019, 11:06:33 AM »
This powerplay strategy is frustrating for more than a year now. You can't have BOTH a stacked PP1 AND an approximate 50/50 split in ice time.
If you are going to stack PP1 then they need to be on the ice for >1 min at a time of the Powerplay.
If you insist on playing time to be split 50/50 between PP1 and PP2, then you need to have PP1 with Tavares/Marner/Rielly and PP2 with Matthews/Nylander/Barrie - or some split thereof. Nylander and Barrie are out there by themselves on PP2.
Just for some math here, the big-4 have played about 33% more PP TOI YTD than Barrie and Nylander, according to NHL.com.
Well that is to be expected if/when PP1 scores...PP2 gets 0 time. The issue is when they don't score and they all scurry off between 0:45 and 1:00. EDIT: Also if PP2 scores then PP1 will have higher Ice time as well. Eg. PP2 30 seconds into their shift, then PP1 was out there for a minute while PP2 was out there for 30 seconds. PP1 will always have higher TOI.
4
« on: October 07, 2019, 10:17:01 AM »
This powerplay strategy is frustrating for more than a year now. You can't have BOTH a stacked PP1 AND an approximate 50/50 split in ice time.
If you are going to stack PP1 then they need to be on the ice for >1 min at a time of the Powerplay.
If you insist on playing time to be split 50/50 between PP1 and PP2, then you need to have PP1 with Tavares/Marner/Rielly and PP2 with Matthews/Nylander/Barrie - or some split thereof. Nylander and Barrie are out there by themselves on PP2.
5
« on: September 11, 2019, 12:44:00 PM »
I don’t think we can ever really trust all the media commentary as Dubas has been pretty good about not talking big numbers in the media but I have to say that I’m really struggling with backing Marner here.
McKenzie, Mirtle, and Friedman have all said that Marner's turned down $11mil x 7. That's good enough for me to accept it as true.
Also it makes sense for Dubas to leak this information out since he knows what (most of) the fan reaction will be.
If this is true and he has turned down "Tavares money", that would be extremely disappointing. If he believes he is worth Matthews Money or better, than all the power to him...it just sucks as a Leaf fan. Does anyone have any credible sources of negotiations between the Leafs and Marner from last summer?
6
« on: September 11, 2019, 12:33:54 PM »
The idea that Marner was ever going to sign for less than 10 was never tenable. Now it looks like 11 is the floor, except for all that cap implication stuff that I don't understand.
I'm probably going to get this wrong somewhere in the details (Deebo, help!)
Similar to what Nylander went through last year, signing after the season starts for an RFA means the annual value of the cap hit for the first year is pro-rated up to match the annual value for the remaining years, e.g. 6.9 AAV is prorated to 10+M annually for the 2 months missed; total actual cap hit from the daily aggregate totaled for that first season was still 6.9M.
This year, it is different because of LTIR. The Leafs will be using LTIR, and thus there is no cap space, and therefore, their cap calculations aren't considered done with daily cap hit aggregation; they're only looking at the annual values (i.e. the easy way).
If Marner wants a 10.5M AAV for the duration of his next contract but tries to take the Leafs into Dec 1 the way Nylander did, then the 10.5 has to be pro-rated to 13M (or whatever, I'm not doing the math). Then when you look at the annual cap for the Leafs, even with the 10.55M LTIR space, they're not going to be able to fit it unless they shed like 3M in cap off the roster. If Marner wants to push to December, the amount the Leafs can sign him for goes down to about 7M, which is counter productive in every possible way. Basically every day beyond Oct 2 the Marner camp pushes this, the Leafs can only sign him for less and less.
Thanks for taking the trouble to explain this, herman. I now understand that there is a lot of incentive for Marner to sign with the Leafs before the season starts.
If this is correct, then this should get resolved before game 1. Neither side actually can afford it to go beyond that.
7
« on: July 30, 2019, 11:40:54 AM »
Did Tampa just walk away with ~$2M in cap space and a player who can play?
8
« on: July 25, 2019, 05:15:35 PM »
How about...
Rielly Ceci
Dermott Barrie
Muzzin Liljegren
Not sure how that 2nd pairing would work...but I like the idea of splitting Rielly/Barrie/Muzzin.
9
« on: July 18, 2019, 05:41:42 PM »
I agree, there has to be a way to move anchor players for a maxed out team. I would take one of the 3 following situations:
1. Each team gets 1 cap free buyout (Full $ to player) of a player once every 2 years - player becomes UFA regardless of status. This along with a 5 year max contract would work well for me and might result in more player movement. It would save certain teams from seriously hurting themselves by giving up a first round pick to unload a contract anchor (I know I know don't sign the anchor in the first place - yet most teams will have someone).
2. Trading of cap space which has been talked about before? Not sure where I fall on that one.
3. One designated player drafted by your team exempt from counting against the cap.
11
« on: July 17, 2019, 11:21:28 AM »
12
« on: July 17, 2019, 11:13:09 AM »
13
« on: June 28, 2019, 10:47:27 AM »
Friedman is saying Leafs offered a short term 2 x $8M deal so Marner can go back to the well in year 3 when presumably there's a new TV deal and the cap is higher.
I believe he said that they may offer him that, not that they have. So it seemed speculative.
That makes sense...no way a 2 year deal makes sense for the Leafs, other than punting the problem down the road.
14
« on: June 28, 2019, 10:43:43 AM »
Friedman is saying Leafs offered a short term 2 x $8M deal so Marner can go back to the well in year 3 when presumably there's a new TV deal and the cap is higher.
And he's got 3 RFA years left? That's an interesting deal.
From a Leafs perspective, I would rather cave and go 8 x $11 or even as high as 8 x $12. My guess is after 2 years he'll be asking for $13-14M + per year on a long term deal. We will need the cap space in those prime contending years.
15
« on: June 25, 2019, 03:20:28 PM »
$13 or $14M for Marner? I'll believe it when I see it. If it comes to that, hopefully we can sign someone else (like Panarin) for a more reasonable amount and use the extra for another position of need (we do need a defense, after all). And the picks will be icing on the cake.
The big risk is that we let Marner go and aren't able to sign a really good player to take his spot.
In this hypothetical world, if Marner signs for $13M, Panarin or equivalent won’t be signing for $9M.
|
Show Posts
