- This topic has 970 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
-
Posts
-
The cap is going up next year, that much is guaranteed. But the rumored increases beyond that were not set in stone, and are almost certainly not going to be as high as originally forecasted. Personally, I don’t want to find the Leafs in a cap-strapped situation like they were during the flat cap Covid era.
Not going to be anywhere near that era. It’ll stay up where they expect it.
And even if it doesn’t, there will be at least a dozen teams maxed out regardless. It’ll be a league problem, not a Leafs problem.
The only way they would ever be able to protect themselves against that situation in the future is to get the players to agree on % based contracts that go up or down depending on revenue.
For example, if a player is making 10% a year on a 100 million max cap, he makes 10 million. If the cap goes up to 110 million, he makes 11 million. If it goes down to 90, he makes 9 million. It would significantly change which players get the max 8 years.
Pelley said in the press release “It was determined that a new voice was required to take the team to the next level in the years ahead.”
That suggests they are going to hire a new hockey president rather than have Tree report directly to Pelley.
My guess is Pelley already has his guy. Wonder who it is?
The cap is going up. That’s not uncertain. It’s already been announced.
~UGThe cap is going up next year, that much is guaranteed. But the rumored increases beyond that were not set in stone, and are almost certainly not going to be as high as originally forecasted. Personally, I don’t want to find the Leafs in a cap-strapped situation like they were during the flat cap Covid era.
I think that’s the point that everyone is trying to make. Rantanen JUST signed his extension for $12M, so that’s the benchmark. Everybody knew the cap was going up next year, and now there is even more uncertainty regarding the cap rising due to economic factors. So, if anything, Marner should have even less leverage as we might be back in a slow rising cap situation for the next few years.
The cap is going up. That’s not uncertain. It’s already been announced.
12 in Texas is not the same as 12 in Toronto.
There are basic calculators that do the math.
Marner can’t collect his signing bonus in Arizona or Long Island. That’s a big problem here.
Someone posted this article here I think and I just read it.
If you haven’t it’s a great read and breakdown of the huge differences between Florida and Toronto as far as how the 2 teams are constructed from a cap distribution perspective and (IMO) is a bang on evaluation of why Toronto simply can’t compete with teams that use their cap space this way vs how Toronto has.
Which ties into the need for Toronto to drastically change how they spread out their cap dollars if they want to get to the next level.
I also got some insights I was not aware of like after game 2 Florida adapting by moving their top D pairing to match up against the JT / Nylander line and have their 2nd pairing match up vs Marner and Matthews. That should have resulted in a mismatch in Toronto’s favour but it never did.
I like the mention that the Leafs coaching staff perhaps need to be more Jon Cooper / Paul Maurice like and whine more about officiating – as pathetic as that sounds it has worked and since the NHL can’t figure out how to get officiating straightened out perhaps public shaming the on ice officials is the only way teams can try to ensure a more fairly officiated game.
I mean these 2 paragraphs kinda’ say it all no?
The Leafs’ whole model is based on paying their top players massive dollars to dominate their matchups. This is really nothing new to anyone at this point; their eggs are in a top-heavy basket, and when the top six is up a grand total of one goal over seven games, the Leafs will lose the series.
The Panthers’ bottom six should be better because they pay them a lot more money. Florida’s third line, even with Marchand’s salary 50% retained, costs more than the entire Toronto bottom six.
You have to also think that (since home ice didn’t mean jack shit) the Leafs perhaps should have put Matthews on LTIR and used that money at the TDL to bulk up like Florida did but that’s spilt milk at this point.
The Leafs didn’t lose because of one player, or even one thing (i.e. Stolarz being knocked out of the series (which he has confirmed was as a result of the elbow from Bennett and not the shot to the mask so suck it Florida fans and concussion experts) but a combination of things including but not limited to:
Roster Construction due to Salary Cap
Production or lack thereof from the core
Lack of a heavy forecheck or willingness to battle for pucks resulting in a rush chance only offense after game 2 as the article pointed out
Being outgoalied (vs being goalied by Bob and only losing due to that. Bob was good, not unbeatable)Scoring 4 goals total in the final 4 games of the series is a guaranteed series loss for pretty much any team.
Change the way this team is constructed from a salary cap perspective and stop paying too many elite, talented forwards too much of the cap or continue to fail is how I see it.
Marner earning even the same as Rantanen let alone more is absolute folly. There is zero justification for it. – 50 Mission Cap
But what about Marner deserving MORE than Rantanen? Some folks seem to think he absolutely must be paid whatever it takes to keep him……yes I’m being silly by asking you this.
For what it’s worth I agree with you that Rantanen is the bar and Marner is beneath that bar but I’m not sure Marner or his agent see it that way.
