Speculation: NSH interested in Marner

[Ledge And Dairy]

It feels like you are trying to be right, rather than logical. Marner has more value to Nashville if he comes with an extension. Therefore Toronto will facilitate an extension being in place. This is the whole point of finding a place Marner wants to go to. Again, Marner wants to get paid and Nashville doesn't want only one year of Marner. These are the conditions that make a trade work for all three parties.

Also, look up the Mark Stone deal to Vegas. He got traded but didn't sign an extension until the following March because you can't sign a max term deal until then after being acquired in a trade. Since, Nashville and Marner may not want to wait that long a sign and trade could remedy this.

View attachment 874110

You are literally just making stuff up for the sake of argument. Toronto has no say in whether he signs an extension with a new team or not. The only thing they can do is refuse to allow teams to discuss a contract extension with him prior to making a trade. However if they do that they are going to have a hard time dealing him at all. There is nothing preventing Marner from signing an 8 year extension immediately after being traded.

Once again you are just making stuff up here with Mark Stone. He got traded February 25th of 2019 and signed the extension on March 8th of 2019, that's less than a month after the trade. It had nothing to do with the max term and 100% to do with the tagging rule.

 

[4thline]

When's the last time a pending UFA sign and trade lead to a significantly greater return in trade value?

So uh, how are peopme supposed to answer this that doesn't lead to you retorting with "nuh uh, they would have got that as a rental"? It's completely unprovable either way.

The reality is that the extension is the piece that allows these teams to find common ground. No extension, no mutually agreeable deal

 

[JKG33]

So uh, how are peopme supposed to answer this that doesn't lead to you retorting with "nuh uh, they would have got that as a rental"? It's completely unprovable either way.

The reality is that the extension is the piece that allows these teams to find common ground. No extension, no mutually agreeable deal

I mean it's pretty easy to judge if a trade is in the ballpark or an overpayment. I'll have a good faith argument if you can find one. Cause I honestly can't think of any significant UFAs recently. Most are all RFAs, guys like Dubois and Tkachuk.

 

[conFABulator]

When's the last time a pending UFA sign and trade lead to a significantly greater return in trade value? The highest profile player I can think of is Stone, and that return was still fairly meh. And I'd damn sure take Stone over Marner if I'm trying to win a cup

Cool. Who was the last superstar that got traded a year before UFA for an underwhelming return?

 

[JKG33]

Cool. Who was the last superstar that got traded a year before UFA for an underwhelming return?

I mean if you ask Pens fans, Jake Guentzal (if you wanna count a rental). If not I can't think of any who got a great return either that was the off season before

 

[conFABulator]

You are literally just making stuff up for the sake of argument. Toronto has no say in whether he signs an extension with a new team or not. The only thing they can do is refuse to allow teams to discuss a contract extension with him prior to making a trade. However if they do that they are going to have a hard time dealing him at all. There is nothing preventing Marner from signing an 8 year extension immediately after being traded.

Once again you are just making stuff up here with Mark Stone. He got traded February 25th of 2019 and signed the extension on March 8th of 2019, that's less than a month after the trade. It had nothing to do with the max term and 100% to do with the tagging rule.

Did you see th part where it said they couldn't sign the banking extension until March 1. What do you think that was about.

You are literally just making stuff up for the sake of argument. Toronto has no say in whether he signs an extension with a new team or not. The only thing they can do is refuse to allow teams to discuss a contract extension with him prior to making a trade. However if they do that they are going to have a hard time dealing him at all. There is nothing preventing Marner from signing an 8 year extension immediately after being traded.

Once again you are just making stuff up here with Mark Stone. He got traded February 25th of 2019 and signed the extension on March 8th of 2019, that's less than a month after the trade. It had nothing to do with the max term and 100% to do with the tagging rule.

Not making stuff up, however I am incorrect. The rule I was referring to was amended in th last CBA. I was correct about Stone and remembered that rule, I do. It know it changed in 2020.

"CBA §50.8(b)(iv) shall be amended to provide that when a club acquires a Player who is signed through the subsequent Trade
Deadline, it can immediately sign him to an 8-year SPC without waiting until the subsequent Trade Deadline if otherwise
permitted to do so under Section 50.5(f)."

Tagging is a different matter. Thanks.

Yes, Toronto has "no say" in where Marner signs after he is traded. However, if he tells the Leafs that Nashville is a city be would be interested in signing an extension with then Toronto can initiate trade discussions and allow Nashville and Marner to negotiate an extension in the event a trade is worked out. IMO working out an extension would increase Marner's value to Nashville.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Did you see th part where it said they couldn't sign the banking extension until March 1. What do you think that was about.

Not making stuff up, however I am incorrect. The rule I was referring to was amended in th last CBA. I was correct about Stone and remembered that rule, I do. It know it changed in 2020.

"CBA §50.8(b)(iv) shall be amended to provide that when a club acquires a Player who is signed through the subsequent Trade
Deadline, it can immediately sign him to an 8-year SPC without waiting until the subsequent Trade Deadline if otherwise
permitted to do so under Section 50.5(f)."

Tagging is a different matter. Thanks.

Yes, Toronto has "no say" in where Marner signs after he is traded. However, if he tells the Leafs that Nashville is a city be would be interested in signing an extension with then Toronto can initiate trade discussions and allow Nashville and Marner to negotiate an extension in the event a trade is worked out. IMO working out an extension would increase Marner's value to Nashville.

Yes you are making stuff up, you "remembering" vs what was actually said in articles are 2 completely different things

 

[conFABulator]

Yes you are making stuff up, you "remembering" vs what was actually said in articles are 2 completely different things
View attachment 874180

Well, I even shared the clause from the CBA that explains the rule was changed and makes no mention of "tagging". More importantly, I admitted I was wrong as the clause was amended in 2020. You're all class I guess. Nice reaction to a person who admitted they were incorrect; double down on telling them they are making stuff up.

Interestingly, this June 5, 2023 article from Lebrun in the Athletic provides this historical review of the Stone trade and it certainly implies (confirms?) that teams and players can negotiate an extension before a trade is finalized and that this happening impacts the value a team will pay for a player in a trade. It's sort of the point I have been making, no? If Marner has a few destinations he will accept a trade to and if one of those teams can agree to a contract extension framework with him before the deal it will increase what that team is willing to offer up in the trade:

"And this much I know to be true: Newport Sports, which represents Stone, told teams who were interested in Stone before that trade deadline in February 2019 that they wouldn’t talk contract until 1) the Senators gave them permission, obviously, but also 2) there was at least the conditional framework of a trade in place. That was Newport’s way of having some control of the process, which was smart. But it also served to scare away some interested teams from making their best pitches to Ottawa."

What this says is that teams that felt they could get Stone to extend with them would have made stronger pitches for him in a trade. Stone didn't even have a full NMC, Marner does and will be able to dictate which teams he would consider an extension with. If he only names Nashville then Toronto has less leverage and if he names a few (that are also interested in him) then the leverage increases. My scenarios are based on the latter being the case.

 

[conFABulator]

I mean if you ask Pens fans, Jake Guentzal (if you wanna count a rental). If not I can't think of any who got a great return either that was the off season before

That's a TDL rental and not a full season situation which we are currently looking at with Marner.

Also, Dubas was trying to have his cake and eat it too there. He wanted futures for Guentzal but also someone who could help keep them in the playoff hunt. Bunting was a pretty big part of that return.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Well, I even shared the clause from the CBA that explains the rule was changed and makes no mention of "tagging". More importantly, I admitted I was wrong as the clause was amended in 2020. You're all class I guess. Nice reaction to a person who admitted they were incorrect; double down on telling them they are making stuff up.

Interestingly, this June 5, 2023 article from Lebrun in the Athletic provides this historical review of the Stone trade and it certainly implies (confirms?) that teams and players can negotiate an extension before a trade is finalized and that this happening impacts the value a team will pay for a player in a trade. It's sort of the point I have been making, no? If Marner has a few destinations he will accept a trade to and if one of those teams can agree to a contract extension framework with him before the deal it will increase what that team is willing to offer up in the trade:

"And this much I know to be true: Newport Sports, which represents Stone, told teams who were interested in Stone before that trade deadline in February 2019 that they wouldn’t talk contract until 1) the Senators gave them permission, obviously, but also 2) there was at least the conditional framework of a trade in place. That was Newport’s way of having some control of the process, which was smart. But it also served to scare away some interested teams from making their best pitches to Ottawa."

What this says is that teams that felt they could get Stone to extend with them would have made stronger pitches for him in a trade. Stone didn't even have a full NMC, Marner does and will be able to dictate which teams he would consider an extension with. If he only names Nashville then Toronto has less leverage and if he names a few (that are also interested in him) then the leverage increases. My scenarios are based on the latter being the case.

Ok we are getting somewhere. We can finally agree that Toronto cannot market Marner as anything more than a rental. However it is true that if there are multiple interested parties they will absolutely bid against eachother. Demand raises his value, however due to his NMC the demand will be limited by where he's willing to go.

If teams get a chance to talk to him prior to a trade and he is willing to extend with that team it will up the interest of the buyer making them more likely to offer more to get him, especially if he's willing to extend with multiple parties. Meaning an extension in place indirectly can raise his value but it is not something Toronto itself has any control over.

As for the rule change made in 2020 I misread when you said "however I am incorrect." Apologies. As for that rule, it only applies to players who are already in the final year of their contract, only the team that holds their rights after the trade deadline in that final year can sign them to an 8 year deal