Author Topic: Mackinnon On Next Contract  (Read 877 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26919
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2019, 10:15:43 AM »
Of all the stupid things in this thread, and there are a lot of stupid things, by far the cream of the crop is saying "I would have traded any player who held out" while at the same time whining that the Leafs should have more deals like the Pastrnak one.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2019, 10:21:40 AM by Nik Bethune »
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline Frycer14

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 784
  • Wheel!
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2019, 10:29:53 AM »
This is such garbage. When Pastrnak signed his contract, he had 123 points in 172 games (0.72 points/game). When Nylander signed his, he had 48 goal, 135 points in 185 games (0.73 points/game). So, with virtually identical point/game, Nylander would t have gotten near $7M when Pastrnak got close to that? You could not be more wrong.

You're definitely right, he was worth the 7M based on his stats and he got it, and it never should have taken so long. What I do think has some merit is a debate on how Dubas went about negotiating that deal, and how it impacted his bargaining position on his other RFA signings. IMO he tried to play hardball, lost, and had to overcompensate on the other two.

TMLfans.ca

Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2019, 10:29:53 AM »

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26919
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2019, 10:50:52 AM »
This is such garbage. When Pastrnak signed his contract, he had 123 points in 172 games (0.72 points/game). When Nylander signed his, he had 48 goal, 135 points in 185 games (0.73 points/game). So, with virtually identical point/game, Nylander would t have gotten near $7M when Pastrnak got close to that? You could not be more wrong.

You're definitely right, he was worth the 7M based on his stats and he got it, and it never should have taken so long. What I do think has some merit is a debate on how Dubas went about negotiating that deal, and how it impacted his bargaining position on his other RFA signings. IMO he tried to play hardball, lost, and had to overcompensate on the other two.

How did he lose? Most of the debate at the time had Nylander's camp asking for something like Draisaitl's deal(or at least at 8m per) and the rumour was the Leafs were offering something closer to what Ehlers got. They met in the middle, very slightly on the Ehlers side.

Arguing that Dubas maybe shouldn't have pushed Nylander into December is fair but realistically that almost certainly means giving Nylander more than what he got.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline azzurri63

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2019, 03:29:37 PM »
Hard to compare players to what they sign for compared to others in their calibre when signing in different years. I'm not arguing that. If Nylander would have signed same time as Pasta he (Nylander) wouldn't have gotten the nearly 7 million he signed for.

The point I'm trying to make and let's see when the time comes as to what MacKinnon will do.

All 3 Leaf youngsters signed for the max. Other concern I had was 2 of them held out to get as much out of Dubas as possible. I would have said see you later.

Because of it we can't even sign a good backup ffs.

No one wishes these guys flop. I would love to see this team win as much as the rest of you but plain and simple Dubas overpaid and got schooled on all 3 contracts.

He should have stood firm with Nylander and say hey this is the max we are offering. Don't like it see you later. He didn't Nylander milked him and the other 2 saw this and got the max.

You guys happy with their play. I'm not and definitely not at what they are getting paid.

Again we'll see when the time comes a lot can change. But as Bullfrog said even 10% for the fab 3 would have saved us around 3 million. Decent backup maybe not like the sh*tshow we've been witnessing.
Leafs can sign a decent backup. Trade a guy like Hyman for picks/prospect and you've got the cash. They could also move Johnsson if they wanted/needed to. I don't think he's had a very good year considering where he's playing. His point totals aren't good enough for me considering he got lots of PP1 time. I didn't mention CC because not sure he's tradable.

Really. Think some of you are missing my point. There should be no reason to trade anyone for a backup. That could have been avoided if we didn't overpay.

Offline azzurri63

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2019, 03:34:04 PM »
Of all the stupid things in this thread, and there are a lot of stupid things, by far the cream of the crop is saying "I would have traded any player who held out" while at the same time whining that the Leafs should have more deals like the Pastrnak one.

He's not worth what Pasternak got. He got more because the market was what it was.
He's nowhere near the player and I wouldn't have caved to give him the 7.

You guys can talk all you want this team has more problems than you think and it mostly boils down to Dubas.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26919
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2019, 03:59:32 PM »
He's not worth what Pasternak got. He got more because the market was what it was.

Nylander got a smaller % of the cap than Pastrnak did.

You're missing the point though. Pastrnak held out. Should the Bruins have traded him because he held out the way you think Dubas should have with Marner and Nylander? Or was that just more fake tough guy nonsense like you usually spew?
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline Guilt Trip

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2019, 04:14:57 PM »
Hard to compare players to what they sign for compared to others in their calibre when signing in different years. I'm not arguing that. If Nylander would have signed same time as Pasta he (Nylander) wouldn't have gotten the nearly 7 million he signed for.

The point I'm trying to make and let's see when the time comes as to what MacKinnon will do.

All 3 Leaf youngsters signed for the max. Other concern I had was 2 of them held out to get as much out of Dubas as possible. I would have said see you later.

Because of it we can't even sign a good backup ffs.

No one wishes these guys flop. I would love to see this team win as much as the rest of you but plain and simple Dubas overpaid and got schooled on all 3 contracts.

He should have stood firm with Nylander and say hey this is the max we are offering. Don't like it see you later. He didn't Nylander milked him and the other 2 saw this and got the max.

You guys happy with their play. I'm not and definitely not at what they are getting paid.

Again we'll see when the time comes a lot can change. But as Bullfrog said even 10% for the fab 3 would have saved us around 3 million. Decent backup maybe not like the sh*tshow we've been witnessing.
Leafs can sign a decent backup. Trade a guy like Hyman for picks/prospect and you've got the cash. They could also move Johnsson if they wanted/needed to. I don't think he's had a very good year considering where he's playing. His point totals aren't good enough for me considering he got lots of PP1 time. I didn't mention CC because not sure he's tradable.

Really. Think some of you are missing my point. There should be no reason to trade anyone for a backup. That could have been avoided if we didn't overpay.
You said we can't even sign a good backup ffs. I just showed you a way we could. This notion that Dubas' hands are tied and we can't pay for a capable backup simply isn't true. And if you don't have a capable in your system you either get one via FA or you trade for one. Sometimes you do have to trade to obtain an asset you need.

Offline azzurri63

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2019, 04:54:40 PM »
Hard to compare players to what they sign for compared to others in their calibre when signing in different years. I'm not arguing that. If Nylander would have signed same time as Pasta he (Nylander) wouldn't have gotten the nearly 7 million he signed for.

The point I'm trying to make and let's see when the time comes as to what MacKinnon will do.

All 3 Leaf youngsters signed for the max. Other concern I had was 2 of them held out to get as much out of Dubas as possible. I would have said see you later.

Because of it we can't even sign a good backup ffs.

No one wishes these guys flop. I would love to see this team win as much as the rest of you but plain and simple Dubas overpaid and got schooled on all 3 contracts.

He should have stood firm with Nylander and say hey this is the max we are offering. Don't like it see you later. He didn't Nylander milked him and the other 2 saw this and got the max.

You guys happy with their play. I'm not and definitely not at what they are getting paid.

Again we'll see when the time comes a lot can change. But as Bullfrog said even 10% for the fab 3 would have saved us around 3 million. Decent backup maybe not like the sh*tshow we've been witnessing.
Leafs can sign a decent backup. Trade a guy like Hyman for picks/prospect and you've got the cash. They could also move Johnsson if they wanted/needed to. I don't think he's had a very good year considering where he's playing. His point totals aren't good enough for me considering he got lots of PP1 time. I didn't mention CC because not sure he's tradable.

Really. Think some of you are missing my point. There should be no reason to trade anyone for a backup. That could have been avoided if we didn't overpay.
You said we can't even sign a good backup ffs. I just showed you a way we could. This notion that Dubas' hands are tied and we can't pay for a capable backup simply isn't true. And if you don't have a capable in your system you either get one via FA or you trade for one. Sometimes you do have to trade to obtain an asset you need.

Offline azzurri63

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2019, 05:01:29 PM »
Signing a backup and trading for one are 2 different things.

We can't sign one because we have no room. No s**t we can trade for one but again my point is and was it shouldn't have come to that. Having to trade any asset for a backup goalie who Dubas could have signed for very little is a waste.

Anyway done with the whole topic. Nice chatting with you guys.

Offline Bender

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6565
  • Gender: Male
  • Bender cracked corn and he is great!
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2019, 06:22:02 PM »
Signing a backup and trading for one are 2 different things.

We can't sign one because we have no room. No s**t we can trade for one but again my point is and was it shouldn't have come to that. Having to trade any asset for a backup goalie who Dubas could have signed for very little is a waste.

Anyway done with the whole topic. Nice chatting with you guys.
Who is out there that we can hypothetically sign or could've signed in the offseason barring trade?
"They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. So here is the professor's oldest friend, a grotesque, stinking lobster." - Bender

Offline Guilt Trip

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2019, 07:39:36 PM »
Signing a backup and trading for one are 2 different things.

We can't sign one because we have no room. No s**t we can trade for one but again my point is and was it shouldn't have come to that. Having to trade any asset for a backup goalie who Dubas could have signed for very little is a waste.

Anyway done with the whole topic. Nice chatting with you guys.
Who is out there that we can hypothetically sign or could've signed in the offseason barring trade?

He ll get back to you. Lol

Offline Bender

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6565
  • Gender: Male
  • Bender cracked corn and he is great!
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2019, 07:48:09 PM »
Signing a backup and trading for one are 2 different things.

We can't sign one because we have no room. No s**t we can trade for one but again my point is and was it shouldn't have come to that. Having to trade any asset for a backup goalie who Dubas could have signed for very little is a waste.

Anyway done with the whole topic. Nice chatting with you guys.
Who is out there that we can hypothetically sign or could've signed in the offseason barring trade?

He ll get back to you. Lol
I mean, I agree that it should've been addressed over the summer but if a clear upgrade they were confident about that fit under their cap was an FA then wouldn't they sign that guy?
"They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. So here is the professor's oldest friend, a grotesque, stinking lobster." - Bender

Offline Guilt Trip

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2019, 09:49:41 PM »
Signing a backup and trading for one are 2 different things.

We can't sign one because we have no room. No s**t we can trade for one but again my point is and was it shouldn't have come to that. Having to trade any asset for a backup goalie who Dubas could have signed for very little is a waste.

Anyway done with the whole topic. Nice chatting with you guys.
Who is out there that we can hypothetically sign or could've signed in the offseason barring trade?

He ll get back to you. Lol
I mean, I agree that it should've been addressed over the summer but if a clear upgrade they were confident about that fit under their cap was an FA then wouldn't they sign that guy?

Yup they would have. Neuvirth was the ultimate swing at the fences. I say KK will get another shot.

Offline Frycer14

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 784
  • Wheel!
    • View Profile
Re: Mackinnon On Next Contract
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2019, 10:11:33 PM »
Maybe they should ask Luongo if he's got half a season in him for next to no money.