Author Topic: Mitch Marner: what now?  (Read 30396 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline princedpw

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2162
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #375 on: June 19, 2019, 04:26:54 PM »
Nik, from the collection of comments youíve made about Marner and Nylander, it *seems* like you are *hoping* that they sign contracts that are much higher than other commentators predict.  For instance, Mirtle predicted Nylander in the 6.5-7 range (as I recall) and it seemed as though you were pushing Draisatl when others were comparing with Ehlers and Pasternak.  A number of analysts have suggested roughly 9-9.5 for roughly 6 years for Marner is reasonable.  You seem to be talking favorably about numbers in the 11 million range, which would put him in the top 5 players in the league at any position.

My question isnít about who is going to wind up right or wrong (weíll find out soon enough, but I donít really care!) or what method is best for projecting player salaries or who is comparable to who.

Ok, for the most part when I've talked about these salaries I've mainly been focusing on how comparables work and what I think will happen. Why that separates me from some people is that a lot of your analysts are working under a couple of assumptions I think are false, namely:

1. That there's any good reason why a RFA player somehow "deserves" less money than a comparable UFA player.

I see. For me, it's not about "deserves."  Rather, it's simply about the differing market mechanisms (as stupid as one might think they are) that are in place and the impact they are likely to have ... if the NHL market is "efficient" which it certainly is not :-) .  Given the current NHL economic system, it would largely make sense to me that an RFA would be paid "what an equally talented UFA is paid minus very, very roughly the value of the compensation for switching teams (ie: minus the value of 4 first-rounders for a contract > 10.5 million)" or something somewhat along those lines. But the fact that teams also seem to more-or-less be colluding on not offer-sheeting players may further drive down what RFAs can demand.  And on the other side, the fact that a player can hold out drives up his value. 

Quote
2. That despite the vastly disparate revenues between clubs, there's no reason why a player for a high revenue club should be paid more than one for a lower revenue one.

... I agree with that one --- because the players have agreed to compensation system in which all teams must operate in the same salary window and because that window is defined by league-wide revenues rather than team-by-team revenues, it makes sense that individual player compensation is defined by league-wide revenues rather than individual team revenues. 

(Is there a typo above by any chance?  Did you mean you thought that a player playing for a high-revenue club should be paid more than a player playing for a low revenue club?)

Quote
Both of those things, right now at least, will drive the salaries of the guys like Nylander, Matthews and Marner higher than fans here might hope. The fact that Nylander got significantly more than the comps people wanted to use, that Matthews got what people were hoping would be a 8 year term on a 5 year deal...I think that validates how I've tended to try to analyze these things.

I've looked at analysis from the Athletic.  For example, here's Mirtle from May 29, 2018 on Nylander:

https://theathletic.com/371189/2018/05/29/mirtle-breaking-down-what-william-nylanders-second-contract-should-look-like-for-the-leafs/

Bottom line is that he projected 7 million on a 6- or 7-year deal, which was spot on.  (He also projected the dollar amount for a bridge contract.)  He obtained that by taking a range of comparables from Draisaitl as a bit of an outlier on the high end to Ehlers and Drouin on the low end. 

I also found a prediction for Matthews contract in July 2018 (obviously, a very long time before Matthews wound up signing):

https://theathletic.com/384120/2018/07/12/mirtle-auston-matthews-is-going-to-get-paid-by-the-maple-leafs-but-whats-the-right-contract/

His predication for an 8-year contract was 11.7-12.2.  So, I agree that that one was low given he only signed for 5 years.  He didn't make a prediction for a 5-year contract so it's tough to say exactly how far off he was.  Still, the ballpark seems right for a prediction made 10 months early.

So anyway, there are a couple of predictions for Marner.  I couldn't find a Mirtle one from a quick search, but here's one from Ian Tulloch:

https://theathletic.com/988241/2019/05/22/tulloch-a-breakdown-of-what-mitch-marner-should-earn-on-his-next-contract-based-on-comparables/

I think it's interesting that he uses a ranking based on points/gm as his primary metric --- ie, Marner finished 15th in the league in points/game last year.  Here's his bottom line:

Quote
At the end of the day, it looks like a fair contract for Marner based on historical comparables is somewhere between 11-12 percent of the cap on a long-term deal, which would be between $9-10 million. With Kane and Draisaitl as his closest comparables, itís difficult to imagine him getting much less than 11 percent of the cap ($9.1 million), but itís also hard to find evidence that heís worth more than 12 percent ($9.9 million).

If he signs a six-year deal with Toronto, it will probably end up on the lower end of this spectrum (closer to $9 million), whereas an eight-year deal would push his AAV to the higher end of the spectrum (closer to $10 million).

So 9-10 million.

Now, it may be that the market is moving this year. I have no doubt that if Marner gets offer-sheeting, it will up his compensation.  Given that there just haven't been offer-sheets in the past, if they suddenly materialize this year then it's going to screw up any analysis based on historical analysis.  But, it's kind of impossible for me to factor that in so I'm willing to go with Tulloch's analysis based on the Athletic's solid track record.

Quote
How much money Marner gets paid isn't really something I'm too worried about. I still, like other people, tend to be of the opinion that you keep your stars and try to build around them. I think there's a chance we see big revenue growth(with the new US TV deal) over the next few years and so a lot of the concerns about balance will seem exaggerated.

Obviously my rooting interest as a Leafs fan would like to see all of these guys sign for much less than fair market value but A) I don't think that's realistic and B) I'm not at all interested in letting that sour me on these guys asking for a fair market value. They want to get paid appropriately according to the revenues they're generating and I think it'd be ridiculous for me to think less of them for that because of a ridiculous system the owners implemented(and were willing to shut down the league for).

Fair!

I don't think less of them, but I'm hoping they wind up taking less because it helps the leafs competitive chances ...

but given how the playoffs went last year, Im increasingly feeling that worrying about optimizing team composition is a waste of mental energy....

TMLfans.ca

Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #375 on: June 19, 2019, 04:26:54 PM »

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 25673
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #376 on: June 19, 2019, 05:27:39 PM »
I see. For me, it's not about "deserves."

Well, I think it should be to some extent or another. I think in any negotiation of this sort a player should be able to try and figure out what revenues they're generating and figure out what their fair cut of that is. A jersey sold for a RFA player or a ticket to watch that player doesn't generate less revenue for the NHL then that of a UFA player so a player is under no obligation to pretend otherwise when trying to figure out his value.
 
... I agree with that one --- because the players have agreed to compensation system in which all teams must operate in the same salary window and because that window is defined by league-wide revenues rather than team-by-team revenues, it makes sense that individual player compensation is defined by league-wide revenues rather than individual team revenues. 

I think saying the players "agreed" to those systems when they were the result of pretty ethically dubious lockouts is a stretch but even beyond that all that was in the agreed to CBAs was that teams like the Rangers and Leafs are allowed to hamstring themselves via total compensation if they choose. Short of the maximum salary, there's nothing restricting what players can ask from a particular team.

Likewise, the Leafs are more than free to take the opposing negotiating position. It doesn't generally seem to be working very well for them because it's indulging in a fiction. It's a simple fact of reality that hockey players are "worth" more in certain markets than in others. The NHL's decision to not acknowledge that in their CBA is not something the players are morally obligated to have tie their hands in negotiations.

Bottom line is that he projected 7 million on a 6- or 7-year deal, which was spot on.  (He also projected the dollar amount for a bridge contract.)  He obtained that by taking a range of comparables from Draisaitl as a bit of an outlier on the high end to Ehlers and Drouin on the low end. 

Mirtle's a clever guy, not clever enough for me to want to buy a membership in the Athletic but still, and I'm glad his projection was close to reality. I think that's vastly different than a lot of the people who were here and exclusively using guys like Ehlers and Pastrnak as comparisons and thought the idea of Nylander at 7 was outrageous.

I never made any serious predictions for what Nylander got, all I said was that a range of comparisons were valid and I wouldn't be surprised if his deal came down within that range.

At the end of the day, it looks like a fair contract for Marner based on historical comparables is somewhere between 11-12 percent of the cap on a long-term deal, which would be between $9-10 million. With Kane and Draisaitl as his closest comparables, itís difficult to imagine him getting much less than 11 percent of the cap ($9.1 million), but itís also hard to find evidence that heís worth more than 12 percent ($9.9 million).

If he signs a six-year deal with Toronto, it will probably end up on the lower end of this spectrum (closer to $9 million), whereas an eight-year deal would push his AAV to the higher end of the spectrum (closer to $10 million).

I said this during the Nylander thing, it's super easy to make cases for just about any number. For instance, you say yourself that Kane is one of Marner's best comparables. And the 2nd deal Kane signed was a 5 year deal, worth 11.09% of the cap. Kane didn't sign his deal after his 88 point season. He signed it on Dec. 2nd, 2009. To date, Kane's best season total was 70 points. As best as I can tell, when Kane signed his deal he was on a 82 point pace, having scored 26 points in 26 games.

So what does that deal really tell us? Marner, coming off a better season than Kane had ever had or was projected to have(15% more scoring!) and presumably negotiating for more than three extra UFA years couldn't possibly think he should get 13.5% of the cap as opposed to 11%? If I were Marner's agent I'd think that three extra years of UFA service being only worth a 1% bump on the cap hit was unreasonable and that's before we even got to my notion about player's worth varying by market.

Anyway that's me just using one example you provided. Do you really doubt I could look back and find others that build a "reasonable" case for 11 million?

Regardless, my belief that 11 million is a perfectly believable outcome really isn't based on making a case for one other over another or historical precedent. Just that it seems to be what Marner wants and I really tend to think teams rather than players are the ones who are more likely to give in these negotiations. I've made this point before but it's much easier for Marner to find another hockey team than for the Leafs to find another player as good as Marner.

If you don't think it's reasonable for Marner to get 11 million and that he's going to be reading the Athletic articles for a definition of his worth as opposed to trying to get a fair cut of the giant amount of revenues the Leafs are generating then that's fair enough but I think the Nylander and Matthews deals tell us you're probably in for a disappointment. Personally, I'm going to go back to thinking that any number in between the low end and the high end is possible.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline lamajama

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #377 on: June 19, 2019, 05:55:36 PM »
A few thoughts that occurred to me last summer after I mulled over JT signing and the prediction/statement that Marner was going to
play with JT.....

- from the Leafs side, they had better sign him before last season even if it *appeared to be an over-pay* this past year

- If I was Marner I'm pretty sure I'm having a career year playing with JT so I'm signing anything.

Not exactly a genius take as it was pretty obvious if Leafs didn't sign him last summer that this was going to happen.
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

Online Joe S.

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #378 on: June 19, 2019, 06:16:41 PM »
I hope Paul is happy he's managed to get a large portion of the fanbase turning on his kid.

Did I miss something? Did something happen? Did Anyone from the marner camp say anything at all?

Offline Frank E

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 4412
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #379 on: June 19, 2019, 06:56:26 PM »
I hope Paul is happy he's managed to get a large portion of the fanbase turning on his kid.

Did I miss something? Did something happen? Did Anyone from the marner camp say anything at all?

I heard they told Dubas to go F a duck, and to call only when he's got a $88m cheque in hand for them.

Tough stance.

Offline Dappleganger

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1652
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #380 on: June 19, 2019, 07:44:52 PM »
I hope Paul is happy he's managed to get a large portion of the fanbase turning on his kid.

Did I miss something? Did something happen? Did Anyone from the marner camp say anything at all?

I heard they told Dubas to go F a duck, and to call only when he's got a $88m cheque in hand for them.

Tough stance.

Can I interest you in a $78m check?

Offline princedpw

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2162
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #381 on: June 20, 2019, 01:59:58 AM »
Why is that ďgoodĒ?  Why do you want the wealthiest players to get wealthier at the expense of the less wealthy players?

Phrase this another way: don't you want the best players to get wealthier at the expense of the worse players?

I actually donít particularly want that.  Itís a philosophical thing, but I made the rules then player A (eg: the Goat) would not earn 10 times less than player B (eg: Marner/Matthews).   Matthews didnít work 10 times harder than the goat (there isnít that much time in the day). He might not have worked any harder at all. He was just born with some genetic gifts and lucked into a good developmental environment.  In a just world (obviously not the one we are living in), that kind of luck wouldnít convey absurd differentials in material wealth.

All this is less of a big deal for professional athletes than people in other segments of society.  But still, Iím not hoping for further inequality in salary for the best players over the worst ones.  They are already absurdly unequal.

Iím not a republican. :-)

Online OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2374
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #382 on: June 20, 2019, 05:59:43 AM »
Why is that ďgoodĒ?  Why do you want the wealthiest players to get wealthier at the expense of the less wealthy players?

Phrase this another way: don't you want the best players to get wealthier at the expense of the worse players?

I actually donít particularly want that.  Itís a philosophical thing, but I made the rules then player A (eg: the Goat) would not earn 10 times less than player B (eg: Marner/Matthews).   Matthews didnít work 10 times harder than the goat (there isnít that much time in the day). He might not have worked any harder at all. He was just born with some genetic gifts and lucked into a good developmental environment.  In a just world (obviously not the one we are living in), that kind of luck wouldnít convey absurd differentials in material wealth.

All this is less of a big deal for professional athletes than people in other segments of society.  But still, Iím not hoping for further inequality in salary for the best players over the worst ones.  They are already absurdly unequal.

Iím not a republican. :-)

I don't know..I think in some professions the most talented should make absurdly more money than the least talented.

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Global Moderator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 24349
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #383 on: June 20, 2019, 09:16:28 AM »
Iím not a republican. :-)

Haha, I appreciate your reasoning and see where you're coming from.

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Global Moderator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 24349
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #384 on: June 20, 2019, 09:23:18 AM »
Marner somehow received five top-5 votes for the Selke trophy this year. I expected them to all be from Toronto-centric writers but I was wrong:

Kevin Allen (USA Today), Jason Brough (Athletic), Mark Lazerus (Athletic), Richard Morin (Arizona Republic), and Jim Thomas (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) all gave him votes. Thomas ranked him 3rd! 3rd! Every single one of those guys had him over Sasha freakin' Barkov.

Offline Zee

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 11666
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #385 on: June 20, 2019, 09:28:29 AM »
Marner somehow received five top-5 votes for the Selke trophy this year. I expected them to all be from Toronto-centric writers but I was wrong:

Kevin Allen (USA Today), Jason Brough (Athletic), Mark Lazerus (Athletic), Richard Morin (Arizona Republic), and Jim Thomas (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) all gave him votes. Thomas ranked him 3rd! 3rd! Every single one of those guys had him over Sasha freakin' Barkov.

Paul Marner be like $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Offline Zee

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 11666
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #386 on: June 20, 2019, 09:40:22 AM »
The draft is tomorrow.   Let's make today Mitch Marner signing day.  Would set the tone for a good weekend.  Let's go boys, get er done!!

Online herman

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 16137
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #387 on: June 20, 2019, 09:40:47 AM »
Johnsson picked up a handful of homer picks for the Calder from local writers.

I thought the Marcus Pettersson votes were oopsies where they forgot Elias' first name, but they're real votes (they voted for Elias first)!

Offline disco

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2309
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #388 on: June 20, 2019, 10:53:12 AM »
I think he gets it. No way it's going to be another sitting situation like Willy. Just the reality of the biznass. You've got your core of Auston/Marner/Tavares, two superstar centers and a superstar winger. That's a hella core. That drives two lines. And all three are responsible defensively. Auston and Mitchy made huge strides in that area this year. The three 11-million-dollar men. The other 55% of your fills out your roster. Be creative, draft well, plug in with good role players. That's at least a five year cup window, I'm guessing more. First world problems :) The envy of most of the league. At the cap, but with young, in-their-prime core players.

And I think it is a respect/value thing. They see Matthews as their comparable, and it's a decent case. Not a center but he does so many things well and drives his line. If JT didn't come here and Naz and Mitchy played all year, Kadri definitely has a much better year.

The rough cap dollars where the Leafs most likely are moving forward:
Core($$$$): Matthews/Marner/Tavares - (2 star centers / star winger)
Sub-core($$$): Rielly*/Freddie* - (top D/top goalie/additional D)
Talented Support($$movable): Willy/Naz/Kappy/Johsson - (additional scoring)
Support($): The rest

* currently on value contracts
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 11:34:32 AM by disco »

Online Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 16747
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #389 on: June 20, 2019, 11:19:02 AM »
Yeah, I think we're inadvertently headed back to a Burkean future where the top six are players and the bottom 6 are plumbers.

In our case, they'll have to be literal plumbers or we won't be able to afford them.

On second thought, real plumbers are expensive.  We'll just have to fold the team.

TMLfans.ca

Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #389 on: June 20, 2019, 11:19:02 AM »