[Signing] Leafs sign Marner to 6 year deal ($10.893mil AAV)

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Lol, give your head a shake man, Tkachuk is a bigger and a very likely better version of Marchand, Marchand was 27 before he reached 30 goals and 60 points, Tkachuk did it in spades at 21.

Simply put, I think last season was an outlier. I don't see the soft hands or the same skating skill, but time will tell if I'm wrong. He's 21 which was a great accomplishment to reach those totals, but a guy who's 31st in points still doesn't deserve a $10M+ contract IMO. But again, future value projection so you never really know.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by nik-

dubas is trash.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1172649079148433409

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Marner is getting paid minimum NHL salary every year and the rest are signing bonuses

PuckPedia @PuckPedia
The #MapleLeafs Mitch Marner 6 year $10.893M Cap Hit:

-Yr 1: $700K Base, $15.3M SB
-Yr 2: $700K & $14.3M SB
-Yr 3: $750K & $9.608M SB
-Yr 4: $750K & $7.25M SB
-Yr 5: $750K & $7.25M SB
-Yr 6: $750K, $7.25M SB

Rep’d by Darren Ferris

30 Million dollars over the course of the next 10 months.

Astonishing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

This is a really bad contract. The fact that it could have been worse is little consolation.

[1qqaaz]

It's funny how Toronto has sacrificed so much of the future just to keep their team together for a year or two.

Meanwhile, Tampa has a much better team, and doesn't even have bad contracts that will hurt them in the future.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The average rate of return of the stock market since its inception is about 10%.

NHL players aren’t putting their money into GIC’s.

There are certain investments that us "regular" people can't partake in - that only the super rich get to invest in... with higher returns and with lower risk. So his 7% estimate is not far off the mark if at all.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

There are certain investments that us "regular" people can't partake in - that only the super rich get to invest in... with higher returns and with lower risk. So his 7% estimate is not far off the mark if at all.

I also think 7% is pretty good for discounting in this context. You certainly don’t need to use risk free rates as Enoch suggested.

Btw your comment about the super rich isn’t really true tbh. This is mostly a myth. Yes the super rich have access to private deals that others don’t, mostly through their networks. But these deals often end up blowing up anyways. They do get offered and have access to speciality products as accredited investors but most of them are high cost ####, just like retail investors are offered. The “higher return, lower risk” is simply not true.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

It's funny how Toronto has sacrificed so much of the future just to keep their team together for a year or two.

Meanwhile, Tampa has a much better team, and doesn't even have bad contracts that will hurt them in the future.

They'd better win something quick because they are tied to their top guys for huge dollars for a long time.

[JackIsBack]

It's interesting... after this deal, Toronto is still under the cap by about $298,134.

All Calgary has left under the cap is about $7,950,791 to sign both Tkachuk and Mangiapane (if we do sign him) - so if we sign Tkachuk for anything more than 7.95 million, we'd be forced to make some roster moves or trades.

It's weird... a team with these contracts:
11,634,000
11,000,000
10,893,000
6,962,366
5,300,000
5,250,000
5,000,000
5,000,000

has more cap room then us with these:
???? (8,000,000)
6,750,000
6,750,000
6,375,000
5,350,000
5,250,000
4,950,000
4,850,000

They beat us on value on every contract in the top 8 (some significantly) with one very small (50k) exception.

[madmike]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

It's interesting... after this deal, Toronto is still under the cap by about $298,134.

All Calgary has left under the cap is about $7,950,791 to sign both Tkachuk and Mangiapane (if we do sign him) - so if we sign Tkachuk for anything more than 7.95 million, we'd be forced to make some roster moves or trades.

It's weird... a team with these contracts:
11,634,000
11,000,000
10,893,000
6,962,366
5,300,000
5,250,000
5,000,000
5,000,000

has more cap room then us with these:
???? (8,000,000)
6,750,000
6,750,000
6,375,000
5,350,000
5,250,000
4,950,000
4,850,000

They beat us on value on every contract in the top 8 (some significantly) with one very small (50k) exception.

Toronto spends very little on their D - at the moment. Where they’re going to get into major trouble is re-signing Barrie and Rielly’s next deal. They’re going to have some very hard decisions to make.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

It's interesting... after this deal, Toronto is still under the cap by about $298,134.

All Calgary has left under the cap is about $7,950,791 to sign both Tkachuk and Mangiapane (if we do sign him) - so if we sign Tkachuk for anything more than 7.95 million, we'd be forced to make some roster moves or trades.

It's weird... a team with these contracts:
11,634,000
11,000,000
10,893,000
6,962,366
5,300,000
5,250,000
5,000,000
5,000,000

has more cap room then us with these:
???? (8,000,000)
6,750,000
6,750,000
6,375,000
5,350,000
5,250,000
4,950,000
4,850,000

They beat us on value on every contract in the top 8 (some significantly) with one very small (50k) exception.

Huh? Beat us on value? Do you just mean cost more? Might wanna check cost per point. Also, the Leafs are "okay" this season but will be losing major roster players next summer.

They also traded a first this summer to dump a salary

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by madmike

Toronto spends very little on their D - at the moment. Where they’re going to get into major trouble is re-signing Barrie and Rielly’s next deal. They’re going to have some very hard decisions to make.

Lets break this down:

Defense Spending:
Calgary: $22,394,209
Toronto: $19,050,000

We only spend $3,344,209 more on active defense - I don't think this is as significant as we think it is.

Forward Spending:
Calgary: $42,988,333 (not including Tkachuk)
Toronto: $55,251,866

They spend $12,263,533 more on active forwards

Goalies Spending:
Calgary $5,500,000
Toronto $5,700,000

It's about even with them spending $200,000 more.


I think we spend more evenly... our middle tier players get more than their middle tier players do - and they have fewer middle tier players.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Huh? Beat us on value? Do you just mean cost more? Might wanna check cost per point. Also, the Leafs are "okay" this season but will be losing major roster players next summer.

They also traded a first this summer to dump a salary

Yes... sorry... I mean cost... there is no doubt that BT signs better "value" deals than most.... although there have been some (Neal) bad deals thrown in there.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

���������� ���������� @dalter
The combined cap hit of John Tavares, Auston Matthews, William Nylander and Mitch Marner is $40.489366 million. The salary cap for this year is $81.5 million.

Dumbas is building a pretty awesome team! for the NBA..

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

It's interesting... after this deal, Toronto is still under the cap by about $298,134.

All Calgary has left under the cap is about $7,950,791 to sign both Tkachuk and Mangiapane (if we do sign him) - so if we sign Tkachuk for anything more than 7.95 million, we'd be forced to make some roster moves or trades.

It's weird... a team with these contracts:
11,634,000
11,000,000
10,893,000
6,962,366
5,300,000
5,250,000
5,000,000
5,000,000

has more cap room then us with these:
???? (8,000,000)
6,750,000
6,750,000
6,375,000
5,350,000
5,250,000
4,950,000
4,850,000

They beat us on value on every contract in the top 8 (some significantly) with one very small (50k) exception.

Have you seen their roster? Their bottom 6 are all league minimum players.

[dino7c]

We are kinda going at this in two threads for some reason...Leafs just traded a first to dump a salary and have major contracts coming up on the back end. Their team as is won't be together for long. Calgary should have an easier time keeping their team together.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The average rate of return of the stock market since its inception is about 10%.

NHL players aren’t putting their money into GIC’s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The OP was talking about the time value of money, and a short-term discount rate for the salary. Conversely, with the stock market, you are talking about investing. Those are two different things. Sure, you could invest the money for the remainder of the season, and your expected return would be 9-10%, but your actual return could be anywhere from +50% to -50% That is why you don't use the stock market (or risky investments) when talking about discount rates. You use risk-free interest rates. (If you want to take on risk to get a return above the discount rate, knock yourself out. But that is a separate investment decision).

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

There are certain investments that us "regular" people can't partake in - that only the super rich get to invest in... with higher returns and with lower risk. So his 7% estimate is not far off the mark if at all.

This simply isn't true. Risk and return are related, and if you want more return, you have to accept more risk. TO be clear, there are lots of investments that are crap (too risky for the expected return), but as far as the efficient frontier goes (i.e. properly priced investments), more return means commensurately more risk.

Originally Posted by heep223

I also think 7% is pretty good for discounting in this context. You certainly don’t need to use risk free rates as Enoch suggested.

The discount rate for cash is the risk-free rate. Other, higher discount rates (used to price investments, construction projects, or whatever) use higher discount rates because there is risk associated with the investment or project. You have to match the risk of the discount rate to the risk of the thing it is discounting.

So again, to the OP's comment, the interest rates I stated are the appropriate number for the point the OP was making.

[GioforPM]

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

It's weird... a team with these contracts:

...

has more cap room then us with these:

Is it really weird when you have to disingenuously pretend two thirds of of the roster of each team doesn't exist to try and make this argument?

[Resolute 14]

As far as the Leafs go, their window is basically this year. Because the tear down begins next summer.

And of particular concern for Toronto will be how the CBA negotiations shake out. If they stall cap growth to allow it to pass the point of escrow, the Leafs are going to be squeezed for a while, even after they inevitably trade one of these three next summer.