https://twitter.com/renlavoietva/status/1176838695917379584
Tkachuk signs bridge deal [3 years, $7mil AAV]
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
Zee
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
And yet, even if you consider Point's deal an "outlier", Evolving Wild's model for his cap hit was only 400k off. So they have a system of figuring out what these players should be signing for, and it seems to work for the majority of RFAs, except Marner. They were $2M off in the Marner prediction. So who's the outlier?
https://twitter.com/MurphysLaw74/status/1176608127606841344
Nailed it.
Nailed it.
Kin
Active member
Zee said:
I have no idea how they arrive at their numbers and I'm not passing any value judgements on it. That doesn't change the fact that there were a bunch of contracts signed, both this year and past years, where Marner's production and cap hit % compared pretty closely and none with Point's.
Hobbes
New member
Much as we might have wished for a deal like this for Marner, I have a sneaky suspicion that in 4 years' time we're going to be really happy with his cap hit when compared to what these bridge-deal signers are going to be commanding. That will be the first year of the new US TV deal (expected to be a BIG increase) plus just natural inflation of a couple % per year. We'll have to re-up Reilly (and Kapanen) that year, but the rest of the core is signed for another 2 or 3. Short term financial pain for long term gain.
Nik the Trik said:
Don't forget Honka!
Kin
Active member
princedpw said:
Sure. Konecny and Boeser are two. Kessel's another.
edit: But with that said, I think the scope of that question is kind of ridiculous. If Marner got a certain percentage of the cap and then a much less productive center got on the surface a much more lucrative deal should we shrug our shoulders and say that those things are just fundamental incomparable? Or a 6 year deal and an 8 year deal?
Strangelove
New member
Another RFA that wasn't overpaid by over $2 million per season. Good for Calgary.
Coco-puffs
New member
Strangelove said:
Its funny you say that because last season they would have been considered overpays. Remember, Nylander got a similar cap hit for SIX years, not THREE.
mr grieves
New member
Coco-puffs said:
The market was reset... long-term deals aren't quite as long and they're higher, bridges are longer and more expensive. I'd rather have Marner and an extra $4M for the next three seasons.
Nik the Trik said:
Broadly speaking, I agree with you -- using more comparables (provided they are gathered systematically) is going to lead to stronger analysis. But at the same time, using more comparables complicates the discussion we are having right now because expanding the set of comparables expands the differences between players too and we seem to disagree on how to weigh such differences. How important are goals vs assists? Primary points vs overall points? Center vs winger? Linemates? UFA vs RFA? UFA years bought out for an RFA. And then, how do you combine all those opposing components to generate a single number for a guy? I think you said it earlier: there's a lot of different ways to slice the data. I think Rantanen's contract is going to be an interesting comparable; you think he has the advantage of playing with McKinnon; well, I think Marner has the advantage of playing with Tavares over Aho and Aho's a center and scored more goals and it goes on and on and on ...
Looking at a system like evolving wild's and then trying to account for why one's personal projections might differ from that system seems to make sense. The evolving wild's model has done pretty well in the past, but it definitely could be wrong and in fact should be wrong if GMs, broadly speaking, are making different decisions about how to value RFAs like Marner.
I looked up the guys you mentioned:
Boeser: 5.76 predicted for a 3-year contract. He got 5.87.
Konecny: 5.9 predicted for 6 years. He got 5.5.
Marner: 8.8 predicted for 6 years. He got 10.8.
(Kessel was a while ago. I'm fine to include him, but I don't know how to find the data. We should probably include all the guys with a similar profile and then look at the average contract to see if Marner lies above or below the average.)
If there was a shift in how GMs were valuing players, one would expect a model like evolving wild's to be systematically low for the current crop of players, but it doesn't seem to be.
I agree that Point is an outlier on the low side (EW predicted 7.1 on a 3-year contract). Marner seems to be an outlier on the high side.
I understand why Dubas did what he did. We'll never know whether waiting Marner out would have been a good idea or a catastrophic one. It makes a fair amount of sense to hedge one's bets here and go the conservative route. I'd definitely prefer having Marner at 10.8 over trading him for a bunch of overpaid midrange guys and/or prospects who are unlikely ever to be half as good as he is. I don't think the Marner contract would bother me at all if it weren't for the fact that we currently have the best team in my lifetime by far and yet, thanks to Leaf luck, are saddled in a division with a historically great Tampa team that has a systematic advantage, a very fine Boston team, and have to deal with the ridiculous playoff format.
Kin
Active member
princedpw said:
Well, it may be a minor point but I'd say Rantanen's "advantage" isn't Mackinnon but rather Mackinnon and Landeskog over Tavares and Hyman.
And Aho and Marner's deal aren't wildly far apart in terms of the standards I'm using.
princedpw said:
Thanks, but I'm not trying to measure these guys using that system and whether or not it was accurate(in part because, quite frankly, I'm not interested in arguing about whatever method they're using). I'm saying, just in terms of points per % of the cap they got, Marner's deal lines up with these guys pretty reasonably. If Marner had gotten 8.8 per he'd have gotten .112 of the cap for every point he scored last year. Konecny got .139 of the cap per point scored. Kessel got .158.
I just don't see how that lines up at all.