Would Matthews’ contract have been worth it if… (read OP)?

[dgibb10]

AAV is fine, term should have been more in leafs favour. They had no leverage on this deal because dubas did a terrible job on the first deal. Luckily for the leafs the cap stagnated or the fact that they didn't get full term on the 1st deal would have bit them in the ass even more, as with a higher cap Matthews would have been asking for 15 mill

 

[Regal]

AAV is fine, term should have been more in leafs favour. They had no leverage on this deal because dubas did a terrible job on the first deal. Luckily for the leafs the cap stagnated or the fact that they didn't get full term on the 1st deal would have bit them in the ass even more, as with a higher cap Matthews would have been asking for 15 mill

I’d argue it’s the opposite. Toronto signed their big deals under the assumption of a rising cap, but the flat cap hurt their ability to add depth. Matthews’ current deal is also based on the idea that the cap is now going to go up. Had the cap not been stagnant, his deal might have been higher but the cap also would have been higher and the cap hit percentage would probably be the same.

 

[dgibb10]

I’d argue it’s the opposite. Toronto signed their big deals under the assumption of a rising cap, but the flat cap hurt their ability to add depth. Matthews’ current deal is also based on the idea that the cap is now going to go up. Had the cap not been stagnant, his deal might have been higher but the cap also would have been higher and the cap hit percentage would probably be the same.

No because they didn't get full term. For example, it would have been something like 12.5x8 (mcdavid deal) vs 11.6x5+15x4

They tried to buy down the AAVs by sacrificing term, knowing that with a rising cap those next contract were going to be massive (they still overpaid on AAV, but that was just shitty negotiating by dubas). But, since the cap didn't go up, the 2nd contracts will be cheaper.

 

[34]

Best goal scorer in the World. Not an option, a fact.

 

[PuckG]

Fair contract. While he leaves a lot to be desired in the playoffs, the teams that go far tend to have all 4 lines show up on a consistent basis. The Leaf's failures are not solely on Matthews.

 

[The Podium]

Matthews performances, or lack there of, in the playoffs have been greatly exaggerated. He has 9 goals 20 points in 18 games over the past 2 seasons, 37 points in 37 games if you exclude his rookie and sophomore seasons and has been the Leafs best all around player for every playoff series.

He hasn’t had his standout performance yet, but he also hasn’t been bad.

 

[authentic]

Matthews performances, or lack there of, in the playoffs have been greatly exaggerated. He has 9 goals 20 points in 18 games over the past 2 seasons, 37 points in 37 games if you exclude his rookie and sophomore seasons and has been the Leafs best all around player for every playoff series.

He hasn’t had his standout performance yet, but he also hasn’t been bad.

Also has scored 4 goals twice and 5 twice, 4 out of 8 playoff series he has objectively been an elite scorer even including his rookie season, and atleast 3 of the other 4 series he played injured. Actually he played injured last year against Tampa and had 5 goals and 9 points in 6 games. Like you said his two-way game has also been excellent and he had more goals and points than anyone on Tampa in both series they played while outplaying Tampa’s best players defensively. People who say he never shows up are out to lunch.

 

[authentic]

Not to mention all of those series came against elite goaltenders, but the narrative is he mails it in and always gets shutdown somehow.

 

[Breakers]

He set himself up perfectly

His next 8 year banger will be backloaded with SB’s so he can’t be bought out

And he essentially played free agency as perfectly as humanly possible

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Another year, another excellent RS and poor playoffs. In a vacuum, I will admit he’s worth 10+ mil per year, but I wouldn’t want my team to be the one signing him. Paying a guy 13M to put up numbers in the playoffs equivalent to guys making 6M is a sure way to destroy your team’s chances at the Cup.

However, if all you care as a fan is watching fun winning hockey during the regular season, then yeah, he’s worth the contract.

 

[TS Quint]

IMO, GMs make decisions to build teams that will lead to SC glory, rather than just RS glory. If I was GM, my players selections would be based around choosing which guys can perform in the POs and at this point, Matthews just isn’t one of those guys I would choose unless he comes at a discount OR he finally puts his big boy pants on for the POs.

To you point about his contract being worth it even if Leafs suck ass, I would agree with you. If the Leafs were in that position, PO expectations are nil and Matthews can score however many RS goals to his heart content. But, we both know that this is not the expectations for the Leafs right now. If a team is going to spend 13.5M$ for a player that is gonna perform in the POs like a 5-7M$ player, is it really in the best interest for SC glory?

I agree with you but at the same time I'm not going to tell another fan to have fun. If they are happy with great regular seasons and no or little playoffs then they are already winning.

The pressure to win in Toronto is over rated. Most fans seem to be like this guy. They are happy with exciting superstars lighting up the league offensively in the regular season and the hope of next year in the playoffs. Good for them.

 

[TS Quint]

Also has scored 4 goals twice and 5 twice, 4 out of 8 playoff series he has objectively been an elite scorer even including his rookie season, and atleast 3 of the other 4 series he played injured. Actually he played injured last year against Tampa and had 5 goals and 9 points in 6 games. Like you said his two-way game has also been excellent and he had more goals and points than anyone on Tampa in both series they played while outplaying Tampa’s best players defensively. People who say he never shows up are out to lunch.

How did he do against Florida last year? When you make that much money you don't get to take a series off without criticism.

 

[Regal]

No because they didn't get full term. For example, it would have been something like 12.5x8 (mcdavid deal) vs 11.6x5+15x4

They tried to buy down the AAVs by sacrificing term, knowing that with a rising cap those next contract were going to be massive (they still overpaid on AAV, but that was just shitty negotiating by dubas). But, since the cap didn't go up, the 2nd contracts will be cheaper.

I know this is old but I still don’t agree here. The second deal being cheaper is irrelevant unless it’s cheaper relative to the cap, which I don’t believe is likely. All the flat cap did was make the first deal worse

 

[dgibb10]

I know this is old but I still don’t agree here. The second deal being cheaper is irrelevant unless it’s cheaper relative to the cap, which I don’t believe is likely. All the flat cap did was make the first deal worse

In a normal cap world there are 2 options for RFAs

Higher AAV long term deal

Lower AAV short term deal, generally followed by much higher AAV next deal

For example:

Player A is offered 10 mill x 4
or 11.5 mill x 8

In the 10 mill x 4 year deal, with the cap going up, the next deal ends up being something like 14 mill x4. So in total they pay 96 mill over 8 years.

Or in the long term deal scenario it's 92 mill total. In general the long term deal ends up being cheaper overall.

BUT, since the cap stagnated, the 2nd deal only ends up being 11x4. Now they only have to pay 84 mill total. So because the cap didn't go up, it went from being a terrible cost saving idea to bridge, into 1 that actually saves you money.

For Matthews specifically, the alternative was likely something like 12.5x8 (mcdavid deal)

100 mill over 8 years.

Due to the cap not rising, It will be 97.8 mill over those 8 years

If the cap did rise however, matthews new deal would have been at 15.5 mill AAV or so, or something like 104.5 mill total over the 8 years.

 

[Byron Bitz]

It’s kind of hard to say what a 26 year old 70 goal Selke candidate should be making, there arnt a ton of comparables.

 

[HockeyVirus]

Another year, another excellent RS and poor playoffs. In a vacuum, I will admit he’s worth 10+ mil per year, but I wouldn’t want my team to be the one signing him. Paying a guy 13M to put up numbers in the playoffs equivalent to guys making 6M is a sure way to destroy your team’s chances at the Cup.

However, if all you care as a fan is watching fun winning hockey during the regular season, then yeah, he’s worth the contract.

No Leaf fans have issue with Matthews playoff. He was great, got sick, missed games and played his last game injured and still got the primary assist on the only goal they scored.

 

[dirtydanglez]

It’s kind of hard to say what a 26 year old 70 goal Selke candidate should be making, there arnt a ton of comparables.

he's not a better player than mcdavid, mack or kuch. since mackinnon is the only one who signed an recent extension we know that matthews should be making no more than $12.6m

 

[NVious]

You have to pay a guy like Matthews, but personally I'm at the point where I don't think any of this core is so integral they become untouchable.

You can't go from BY FAR the best goal scorer in the game to 20-30th best as Matthews does in the playoffs not for 14 million anyways.

If any team had a great offer and Matthews was willing to waive I'd trade him, nearly a decade of playoff underperformances is enough for me

 

[NVious]

No Leaf fans have issue with Matthews playoff. He was great, got sick, missed games and played his last game injured and still got the primary assist on the only goal they scored.

His /60 g pace in the playoffs goes from 1st (by far) in the season to 32 post season, he has 10 goals in the last 25 elimination games, he has 0 goals in his 6 game 7s.

He is just as much a part of the problem as any of the rest of them, having an excuse this specific year doesn't exempt him from that.

 

[HockeyVirus]

His /60 g pace in the playoffs goes from 1st (by far) in the season to 32 post season, he has 10 goals in the last 25 elimination games, he has 0 goals in his 6 game 7s.

He is just as much a part of the problem as any of the rest of them, having an excuse this specific year doesn't exempt him from that.

Whatever you say.

 

[NVious]

Whatever you say.

No it's not whatever I say, it's whatever the stats say;
1st to 32 g/60 season to post season
10g in last 25 elimination games (70 goal scorer turns into a 30 goal scorer)
0 goals in his 6 game 7s

Are you a Leaf fan or Matthews fan? Because I'm a Leaf fan, individuals are secondary.

 

[Regal]

In a normal cap world there are 2 options for RFAs

Higher AAV long term deal

Lower AAV short term deal, generally followed by much higher AAV next deal

For example:

Player A is offered 10 mill x 4
or 11.5 mill x 8

In the 10 mill x 4 year deal, with the cap going up, the next deal ends up being something like 14 mill x4. So in total they pay 96 mill over 8 years.

Or in the long term deal scenario it's 92 mill total. In general the long term deal ends up being cheaper overall.

BUT, since the cap stagnated, the 2nd deal only ends up being 11x4. Now they only have to pay 84 mill total. So because the cap didn't go up, it went from being a terrible cost saving idea to bridge, into 1 that actually saves you money.

For Matthews specifically, the alternative was likely something like 12.5x8 (mcdavid deal)

100 mill over 8 years.

Due to the cap not rising, It will be 97.8 mill over those 8 years

If the cap did rise however, matthews new deal would have been at 15.5 mill AAV or so, or something like 104.5 mill total over the 8 years.

I fully understand everything you’re saying, but while the total cost of the 8 years would be lower, the cap savings would not be lower, because the cap isn’t the same in both of these scenarios. Toronto doesn’t care about the total cost of the deal, because they have a ton of money. They only care about the cap space.

The cap for the first year of this deal in 19-20 was 81.5 million. From 13-14 (the year after the lockout deflated to the cap) to 19–20, the cap raised from 64.3M over those 7 years. That’s a 17.2M raise or 26.7% raise over those 7 years, or 3.81% per year. Under a 81.5M cap that would mean an increase of 3.1M a year, which means over 8 years it would go from 81.5 to 84.6, then 87.7, 90.8, 93.9, 97, 100.1, 103.2.

This would put the cap going into next year at 97M rather than the estimated 87.7. If Matthews was making 15 going into next year at a 97M cap, he’d be at 15.5% of the cap. As it stands, at 13.25, he’s going to be 15.1%. The difference is marginal. And assuming the cap continues to rise 3.1 in both scenarios, he’d continue to be similar

Meanwhile, for the first 5 years, his percentage of the cap stagnated. Here’s each year over 8 years based on what percentage of the cap he made with the flat cap, followed by next years projection then a continued 3.1M jump, or had the cap continued to rise based on the 3.1M per year, and the second contract being 15 vs 13.25

19-20: 14.2 Flat, 14.2 Raised
20-21: 14.2 Flat, 13.7 Raised
21-22: 14.2 Flat, 13.2 Raised
22-23: 14.1 Flat, 12.8 Raised
23-24: 13.9 Flat, 12.4 Raised
24-25: 15.1 Flat, 15.5 Raised
25-26: 14.6 Flat, 15 Raised
26-27: 14.1 Flat, 14.5 Raised

Under the flat cap he’d average 14.3% of the cap over 8 years. Under a rising cap, he’d average 13.9% of the cap over the 8 years. And this likely is underrating the gap because I’m using a flat increase of 3.1M despite the jumps in the cal each year likely being larger the higher it goes. There’s no reason to believe Toronto benefited from the flat cap with Matthews’ deal unless you think the cap is going to rise by a greater margin in the next couple years than it would have raised naturally without the flat cap.

 

[dgibb10]

I fully understand everything you’re saying, but while the total cost of the 8 years would be lower, the cap savings would not be lower, because the cap isn’t the same in both of these scenarios. Toronto doesn’t care about the total cost of the deal, because they have a ton of money. They only care about the cap space.

The cap for the first year of this deal in 19-20 was 81.5 million. From 13-14 (the year after the lockout deflated to the cap) to 19–20, the cap raised from 64.3M over those 7 years. That’s a 17.2M raise or 26.7% raise over those 7 years, or 3.81% per year. Under a 81.5M cap that would mean an increase of 3.1M a year, which means over 8 years it would go from 81.5 to 84.6, then 87.7, 90.8, 93.9, 97, 100.1, 103.2.

This would put the cap going into next year at 97M rather than the estimated 87.7. If Matthews was making 15 going into next year at a 97M cap, he’d be at 15.5% of the cap. As it stands, at 13.25, he’s going to be 15.1%. The difference is marginal. And assuming the cap continues to rise 3.1 in both scenarios, he’d continue to be similar

Meanwhile, for the first 5 years, his percentage of the cap stagnated. Here’s each year over 8 years based on what percentage of the cap he made with the flat cap, followed by next years projection then a continued 3.1M jump, or had the cap continued to rise based on the 3.1M per year, and the second contract being 15 vs 13.25

19-20: 14.2 Flat, 14.2 Raised
20-21: 14.2 Flat, 13.7 Raised
21-22: 14.2 Flat, 13.2 Raised
22-23: 14.1 Flat, 12.8 Raised
23-24: 13.9 Flat, 12.4 Raised
24-25: 15.1 Flat, 15.5 Raised
25-26: 14.6 Flat, 15 Raised
26-27: 14.1 Flat, 14.5 Raised

Under the flat cap he’d average 14.3% of the cap over 8 years. Under a rising cap, he’d average 13.9% of the cap over the 8 years. And this likely is underrating the gap because I’m using a flat increase of 3.1M despite the jumps in the cal each year likely being larger the higher it goes. There’s no reason to believe Toronto benefited from the flat cap with Matthews’ deal unless you think the cap is going to rise by a greater margin in the next couple years than it would have raised naturally without the flat cap.

This illustrates it better.

In a normal cap scenario, you save money (as a % of cap) by going for a long term deal vs a shorter term del. And Toronto went for the option that was more expensive.

But, since the cap stagnated, the benefits of a long term deal were negated, and Toronto was bailed out for not getting term on all 3 of their RFAs

 

[GirardSpinorama]

I wouldn’t say it’s a likely scenario considering basically all elite players eventually have at least one elite run.

I certainly wouldn’t have given him that cap/term given his past performances though

Its a cap league now and we no longer have these super low ovechkin like deals.

Matthews performances, or lack there of, in the playoffs have been greatly exaggerated. He has 9 goals 20 points in 18 games over the past 2 seasons, 37 points in 37 games if you exclude his rookie and sophomore seasons and has been the Leafs best all around player for every playoff series.

He hasn’t had his standout performance yet, but he also hasn’t been bad.

How is that not bad when other players paid that much are producing much better?

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Whatever you say.

Idk about that. I took a gander at the Leafs board and seems there is like a 30/70 split for and against Matthews’ PO performances.

Regardless, if McDavid was under PPG in the POs I would be less than “fine” with him. But if being under PPG is “fine” for you, then well, Canada is a free country.