Show Posts

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 - mr grieves

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 115
1
I'm of the opinion that if anyone holds more cards than the other, it's Marner. He's going to get paid regardless if it's from the Leafs or another team. Worst part for him is he might have to move to New York or Los Angeles or Montreal or wherever to spend his millions. If TO doesn't sign Marner, they're in a bad spot and would be on equal negotiating terms with all other free agents. Panarin's the only one who really could fill Marner's void and why would they pay him $10M+ and not just give it to Marner?

They wouldn't?

They want Marner for something like what players like him make after their ELC (~11.5% of upcoming cap or $9-9.5m). That, or something like it, is probably what they've decided their budget (for next season) is for him, what would allow them to retain other players and perhaps add a bit. Marner at $11m means they can't add, might lose a player.

So,
Marner @ $11m and lose Kapanen, add nothing
or
Kapanen, UFA winger (Skinner?), four firsts (or picks & prospects), and lose Marner.

What gets you the better team?


2
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: Game of Thrones (S8)
« on: May 18, 2019, 01:55:51 PM »
From Scientific American's blog, Not a great article, but it makes some decent points. I'd rather a film/tv critic competent in narratology make this argument -- in a less repetitive, basic way -- but Zeynep did graduate from a semi-humanities focus media studies program where such things are talked about (she clearly dimly recalls some grad seminars), and I think this does get at why the show has gotten worse.

The basic idea is that we've moved from sociological storytelling (world-building, institutions, embedded social actors) to psychological storytelling (prioritizing individual will, personality, and agency as determinative). That's the core problem, though, of course, it's not helped that the show runners aren't very good storytellers in the second, their natural, mode.  Some snippets:

Quote
That tension between internal stories and desires, psychology and external pressures, institutions, norms and events was exactly what Game of Thrones showed us for many of its characters, creating rich tapestries of psychology but also behavior that was neither saintly nor fully evil at any one point. It was something more than that: you could understand why even the characters undertaking evil acts were doing what they did, how their good intentions got subverted, and how incentives structured behavior. The complexity made it much richer than a simplistic morality tale, where unadulterated good fights with evil.

[...]

Tellingly, season eight shocked many viewers by … not initially killing off the main characters. It was the first big indicator of their shift—that they were putting the weight of the story on the individual and abandoning the sociological. In that vein, they had fan-favorite characters pull off stunts we could root and cheer for, like Arya Stark killing the Night King in a somewhat improbable fashion.

link: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/?redirect=1

3
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: Game of Thrones (S8)
« on: May 14, 2019, 01:13:41 PM »
I get that and I kind of don't. Too tired to try and explain but I guess I just never felt she was truly a benevolent ruler. Absolute power corrupts absolutely yadda yadda.

I take this reaction to Dany's character development--as well as the compressed running time leading to nakedly plot-driven developments (one, of many, would be Euron washing up on shore just in time to fight Jaimie; another, the hidden fleet sharpshooting a dragon)--as pretty solid evidence that the show, despite good performances and extravagant production values (and even then, that coffee cup), is  really a pretty ramshackle affair. It's become increasingly so as it approaches its end, and the show runners turn down episodes so they can just wrap this thing up and get over to Disney. (imagine if David Milich had his extra season of Deadwood -- or Terence Winter another for Boardwalk Empire)

On Daenerys, I think it's ultimately the fault of the writing that so many viewers had her trajectory down to this hypothesis: is she a heroic slay queen or a crazy ex-girlfriend? Obviously the bigger question is the stuff Nik covered in his posts about rulers and absolute power, but those issues have not been foregrounded in writing her character for some time, so I don't think it can be put on viewers who "ingest their art" in ways we think sorta dumb. Good writing channels viewers interpretations, and it sure seems like a whole lotta people who were religiously watching this thing were completely unaware of the meditation on absolute power that we're supposed to see as fundamental to the character's turn.

4
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Babcock will be back next season
« on: May 07, 2019, 11:48:24 PM »
Those points actually serve as an indictment of Babcock's inflexibility rather than the other way around.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this one... Babcock putting Martin in the pressbox and drastically cutting Komarov's minutes in the 2nd half of last season is actually proof that he's inflexible with the line-up? Can you show your math on that?

I think the argument isn't the straw man (that Babcock is inflexible) but that he's slow to make changes and adapt -- that he's stubborn. This isn't a controversial view.

Or he values a robust sample size, respects experience, and is willing to ride the veteran longer for the benefit of developing the replacement to succeed?

Maybe?

But on the first, which is the most objectionable and where he is the most stubborn (to the point that we were likely saved from a Rielly-Hainsey shutdown pair this postseason by two major injuries).... the folks who care most about sample size have, generally, been the earliest to get on Babcock about his worst usage habits. For example, they thought a sample size of the previous season showed Marleau in decline, and it continued throughout this season. Awfully big sample, that. And yet, no one was in a position to succeed on the third-line wing? I dunno.

5
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Babcock will be back next season
« on: May 07, 2019, 03:24:21 PM »
Those points actually serve as an indictment of Babcock's inflexibility rather than the other way around.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this one... Babcock putting Martin in the pressbox and drastically cutting Komarov's minutes in the 2nd half of last season is actually proof that he's inflexible with the line-up? Can you show your math on that?

I think the argument isn't the straw man (that Babcock is inflexible) but that he's slow to make changes and adapt -- that he's stubborn. This isn't a controversial view.

6
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Babcock will be back next season
« on: May 06, 2019, 06:55:26 PM »
Wasn't expecting anything different, really. This doesn't preclude a midseason coaching change if Babcock isn't "adapting and evolving" like the rest of the organization.

7
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 03, 2019, 03:04:42 PM »
http://faceoffcircle.ca/2019/05/03/lets-talk-about-mitch-marner/
By far and it’s not even close, the best piece on the subject so far.

Agreed. That 11% is what I was thinking for that last while, and $9.16m or even a slight overpay at $9.516m is where I'd think the Leafs would be comfortable signing him.

8
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 03, 2019, 12:01:38 PM »
I don't think anyone advocating exploring trades or drawing lines is imagining a 500k difference...

That's great but I was just illustrating the concept of negotiating for mutual benefit, which the poster I was responding to suggested didn't exist.

I didn't read Frank E's post as rejection of the concept of negotiating to mutual benefit but an expression of its limits. As herman outlines below, there are all sorts of ways one can negotiate for mutual benefit, but I don't see anything in there that's responsive to Frank's point. Yes, you can structure payouts in ways that benefit players. Yes, you can meet with them in ways that signal you value them. Yes, you can conduct yourself in such a way that players and their agents appreciate your willingness, as a manager, to deflect blame from the players or to do right by players whose careers aren't exactly flourishing in your organization.

But eventually that is all "fluff" -- you do eventually get down to the point where the annual compensation is what's left, and, as anyone of us who's negotiated his or her salary knows, all the efforts the employers has made in integrative negotiation and offering things of less value to them than the employee can mean very little indeed when you get down to what you're getting paid to do a job.

The player's side might feel entitled to all those above facets of the deal and its making--which Dubas will almost certainly provide--and an annual payout of, say, $11.616m or some number north of what the team is willing to pay.

9
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 02, 2019, 09:43:25 PM »
I love you, man.  But that's just a bunch of fluff.  MLSE employs players to play hockey, and they negotiate a contract based on MLSE's benefit.  Contract ask is too much?   Then no deal, no employment.

I think that what is meant there is that Dubas sees that it's not always in a team's best interest to necessarily get the player signed for the lowest possible price and that some negotiations can create rifts between players and teams that linger beyond when a deal is signed. I'd rather Marner sign a 9.5 million aav deal that he was happy with than a 9 million dollar deal he felt undervalued and disrespected by.

I don't think anyone advocating exploring trades or drawing lines is imagining a 500k difference between 2 numbers we know, in all likelihood, the Leafs could manage.

Everyone would like to sign Marner for the least amount of money he'd feel is appropriately respectful, but it's possible that that amount (agent's leaking north of $11M) would ruin the team's salary structure ($1.5-2m is a big gap this year). If that's the case, they simply can't afford to sign him without disrespecting him -- so they would sort of have no option but to trade him. That does happen, even with really great RFA players.

10
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 02, 2019, 04:39:33 PM »
You're including a false premise in your argument: that the Leafs no.1 priority is to have as good or better a team as last year.

There's no way the Leafs' top priority heading into next season isn't to get beyond the first round.

And then you're making assumptions based on that, such as Marner signing at $10M will prevent them from satisfying this assumed priority.

I should've clarified: I'm sure the number isn't exactly $9M. But I'm sure there's a number and that Dubas & c. know what it is. And I think there's a very good chance it's a lot less (relative to the cap space they have available to play with) than what Marner's side wants it to be.

It's not "bad faith" in negotiating to say what your budget is!



 I could then infer an assumption that the alternative (say, 1st round draft picks and a top free agent [Panarin?]) achieves that priority. But if it does, then an assumption that the draft picks (futures) is acceptable completely falsifies the original premise. Because if they'd accept futures + a lesser player (because banking on Panarin is a pretty risky gamble), then why wouldn't they just pay Marner his money and accept the slight dip in other talent for a year?

The idea would be Panarin (or Duchene or Skinner or whoever would run about what they're comfortable paying Marner) + whatever it is Marner's additional ask is (a decent top-four defenseman) would exceed the value of Marner alone. Yes, the compensation for Marner (top prospect, multiple first rounders, whatever) wouldn't pay immediate dividends, but their presence doesn't negate the possibility that the front office might rate Panarin + Stralman more valuable than Marner (let alone those 2 plus whatever the assets recouped in trading Marner might be swapped for).

11
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 02, 2019, 03:47:43 PM »
So you're suggesting the Leafs offer $9M/year and then Mitch gets to pick how many years? That's bizarre. Why would the AAV of a 3-year contract be the same as an 8-year contract? One is buying UFA years; the other is not.

Your first example is an ultimatum.

Your second example doesn't consider Marner's interests fairly. It says the club's interests are 1st, then his are second. Deals should be fair; ideally, they're equally beneficial. In each example, you're dictating terms, and this will not go over well.

This is not even addressing the fact that saying they can afford $9M and not a loonie more is a lie.


Unless you have a way to disappear Marleau's contract, the Leafs can't afford to pay Marner more than $9M and get any sort of replacement for Gardiner. From their perspective, $9M is the richest AAV that can be devoted to Marner in 2019-20.

Whether that's the first year of a long-term deal (buying UFA years), the first year of a Matthews-esque middle-termer (buying few to no UFA years), or a bridge (leading into another, bigger RFA deal) doesn't really make much difference to the Leafs given their overwhelming top priority here (have as good or better a team as last year). That's where Marner's side gets to determine what's beneficial to them. Once the AAV goes over $9M in 2019-20, the Leafs aren't as deep, get thinner on defense, etc. and the deal isn't mutually beneficial. 

I think of it in this way, there a several terms: (1) annual cap hit, (2) total payout, (3) length of deal, (4) structure of payout. In the above, the Leafs are dictating one of the terms -- Marner's side the others.

If your position is that, in dictating any of the terms, the Leafs are dictating all of the terms, then you're not describing a negotiation where mutual benefit is an outcome that's on the table. 

12
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 02, 2019, 02:09:49 PM »
Using ultimatum are not good negotiating tactics. Neither is saying: "$10M is the most we can afford, how about you take $9.5M?"

"We can afford $9M and not a Loonie more. We'd be willing to do a deal of 8, 7, 6, 5, or 3 years. If you won't sign a contract of one of those terms for that cap hit before the draft, we will have to look elsewhere. Our fans want to see some post-season success, and we can't miss out on UFA options."

A lot of fans seem to see contract negotiation as a zero sum game. There is already ample evidence that Dubas and Pridham approach these with the goal being mutual benefit.

"$72M buys you a lot of security and gives us 8 years of a great player. But that not be the way you see your own interests. $27M pays you very well and lets you renegotiate your deal when the league's salary structure has changed, while also giving us your highly valued services for 3 runs at the Cup. Choose which of these options that are in our interest is most in your own interest."

13
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 02, 2019, 12:21:50 PM »

It's not really a firm deadline if it's "If you don't sign by a particular date, we start considering our options". The Leafs should always be considering their options and an artificial deadline only hurts the Leafs' ability to come to a mutually beneficially agreement here.

For all the comparing the situation to Nylander, the Nylander deal ended up being fine.
You def don't want to give Marner an ultimatum. As for the Nylander deal. Money wise yes but the timing really didn't end up being fine. He missed 2 months and never got his game  together. Total waste of a year. Leafs didn't appear to have a plan B in his situation. They absolutely need one with Marner. Willy should be fine next season.

If you "def don't want to give Marner an ultimatum," then how on earth do you avoid a Nylander situation? Just sign him to whatever his agent asks for and be done with it?

14
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 01, 2019, 06:40:55 PM »
This issue with option B that's been brought up before is that it requires the timing of everything to go exactly Toronto's way. Marner needs to get offer-sheeted pretty much right away and the Leafs need to hope a Karlsson or Panarin don't already have agreements from the interview period already lined up. Granted, even if those guys are off the table you can still do a lot of good with $10mil of cap space and four 1st round draft picks.

I really hope it doesn't come to that, but if Marner is dead set on $11-11.5mil, then like others have said it's at least something that needs to be considered.

I would think Option B would require the Leafs being willing to set and hold to an internal deadline. If Marner's camp doesn't agree on something around the draft, Dubas would have to start filling up their dance card for the interview period in order to find another place to spend $10m and with the expectation of later trading Marner's rights or declining to match an offer.

15
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« on: May 01, 2019, 06:13:41 PM »
Option A...sign Marner for 11.5 mill
Option B...sign Panarin/Skinner(whoever) or a couple for D men for 9.5 or less and get 4 1st round picks

Option B's the better path, clearly. It's a legit option, affording management lots of ways to improve the team, and I hope it's on the table should Marner's contract demands exceed a $9.5m AAV.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 115