mr grieves
Well-known member
July 1, 2023.
Marner to Vegas is finally happening
- Thread starter bustaheims
- Start date
Andy007
Well-known member
I have to say, I don't really understand the hyperbole and the rehetoric from each of the "sides" (i.e. anti vs pro Marner) about this whole situation. Marner wasn't traded 2 years ago before his NMC kicked in because Shanahan/Management wanted to keep him long-term. Then, within the course of those 2 years, Marner decides he doesn't want to return, and thus the Leafs can't trade him for anything of (significant) value. How is that anyone's fault? To bemoan the fact the Leafs didn't trade him before his clause kicked in doesn't make sense; they wanted to keep him and re-sign him. Marner, as he is completely entitled to do, simply elected not to re-sign here.
It just is a crappy, worst-case scenario that we have to deal with. It sucks,and it happens but hopefully now Toronto can better manage their Cap, make smart moves and maybe (the horror!) develop some players in-house.
It just is a crappy, worst-case scenario that we have to deal with. It sucks,and it happens but hopefully now Toronto can better manage their Cap, make smart moves and maybe (the horror!) develop some players in-house.
mr grieves
Well-known member
Folks bemoaning how this was managed are bemoaning the management wanting to keep the core 4 together, because they (the moaners, not management) anticipated this outcome. “It makes no sense to bemoan signing David Clarkson on July 1, 2013; at that time they wanted him and signed him to contract they needed to get him” If you remove consequences of management's decisions from consideration, you’re setting an absurdly low bar
Andy007
Well-known member
Oh, I understand people who wanted to see Marner traded years ago, before the NMC clause kicked in, bemoaning how this turned out, absolutely. They have carte blanche to criticize management's decision to keep the core 4 together. The ones who always wanted Marner re-signed; however, no rue for you!
mr grieves
Well-known member
Ah! I understand now. I don't remember anyone around here who's now "anti" Marner saying they wanted the Leafs to hold onto him even if his NMC was about to kick in.
Andy007
Well-known member
I think there are alot of folks who are angry that Marner didn't sign and either blame him (anti-Marner), or the team (pro-Marner). Obviously the plan was to extend him, and it just didn't work out.
I would kind of add to all of this by saying that I don't think many/any of the anti-Marner crowd 2 years ago were saying he should be traded because they were worried he was going to make the decision to walk away from the team after his contract was done. Like maybe people started to suspect this was a possibility at the start of this season, but I don't think anyone would have guessed it 2 years ago. It was always just "well he's going to be too expensive when he re-signs".
herman
Well-known member
I, for one, wanted to trade him before the NMC so the team could have a better chance at balancing the lineup, and get rid of the negotiation cycle, and give Marner some peace to find joy in the game again.
I was pretty sure a sign and trade could be done in an amicable fashion (he could’ve had the whole UFA experience too), but it turns out one side wanted to be petty about it.
I was pretty sure a sign and trade could be done in an amicable fashion (he could’ve had the whole UFA experience too), but it turns out one side wanted to be petty about it.
I don't even think it was the worst thing to see him play out the contract. We came within a game of beating the eventual champs. Teams usually let contracts ride out if they believe they have a legitimate shot. If we won, he would probably come back. What would the Leafs have to pay Rantanen for him to stay? Do we want a $12M Rantanen?