Auston Matthews

Getty Images

NBC Sports NHL Player Survey: Commissioner for the day

5 Comments

When NHL players descended on Chicago earlier this month for the annual Player Media Tour NBC Sports bestowed upon them the power of league commissioner for a day. Putting themselves in Gary Bettman’s shoes, we asked the players what changes they would make to the game on or off the ice. Escrow was an obvious choice, but we wanted the players to get a little more creative than that.

Changing overtime and the offside review were popular answers, but there were also some interesting ideas to come out of the exercise, like what Chicago Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews had to say.

Here’s what the players told us when we asked them, “You’re NHL Commissioner for the day. What change, on or off the ice, would you make and why?”

John Klingberg, Dallas Stars: “Get rid of the escrow. That’s an easy one. And get rid of the offside [review].”

P.K. Subban, New Jersey Devils: “I’d like to see less penalties. I’m a little bit biased, I like the older school game. When I sit back and watch the old NHL and watching guys like Pavel Bure and [Sergei] Fedorov still put up the numbers that they did with guys draped all over them, sometimes in the league we forget what those guys had to go through to earn the numbers and the seasons that they put together. I think sometimes we go a little bit too far this way. But nobody’s perfect. … Maybe just let the guys play a little bit more, let a little bit more stuff go. Every game there’s a controversy of some sort and it doesn’t need to be that way.”

Jonathan Marchessault, Vegas Golden Knights: “I’m pretty happy for the refs to get a little bit more help, to be able to watch replays so it’s a fair game for everyone. After that, just make sure you have a good relationship with the players. I think that’s a big thing that they’re respectful from both sides and both parties. That’s something which I think we have with [the league].”

Ben Bishop, Dallas Stars: “I’d probably get rid of the trapezoid.”

Vladimir Tarasenko, St. Louis Blues: “I would take away the offside challenge because now every time you score a goal you’re looking at the referee [waiting for a signal] and you jump on the bench still waiting, waiting. They can cancel it at any moment. That’s not good, especially in intense games. Sometimes you score a goal and [the team] challenges and there’s a TV timeout and it just kills the speed of the game and kills the momentum, too. I know it’s helping sometimes but I don’t think it’s supposed to be like this, when you score a goal and you’re still waiting for the ref to decide if it’s allowed or not. You can’t really get the full emotions of scoring a goal — especially if you get a 2-on-1, for example, and you have a pass from behind and you don’t know how your feet were [crossing the blue line]. I don’t think it makes sense.”

Jonathan Toews, Chicago Blackhawks: “I always say, just because our travel has been so ridiculous these last bunch of years, I would change the schedule into little weekend series, similar to baseball. Let’s say you go to Winnipeg, you play them three times. You go to Dallas, you play them three times and you don’t go back there. We’ve had so many road trips going somewhere, coming back, going somewhere, coming back — just one game here, two games there, one game there. We’re always practicing, driving to the airport, flying. To me, that’s one of the things maybe other teams, at least in the East, don’t deal with as much as we do.”

Derek Stepan, Arizona Coyotes: “As a centerman let the offensive center on a power play get to choose what circle he gets to take the draw on, and that’s after the team has already put their guys on the ice. Maybe you can catch more centerman on their off side.”

Cam Atkinson, Columbus Blue Jackets: “I would change no offside, so no blue lines. I think that would make the game a lot more fun, especially if you’re an offensive guy. I think the fans would like that, maybe a lot more goals, open up the game a little bit more.”

Kevin Hayes, Philadelphia Flyers: “I would probably [remove] the offside [review]. It slows the game down. It takes momentum away from the game. It’s a fast game and they’re trying to slow it down.”

Rasmus Dahlin, Buffalo Sabres: “I’d put more than just two games in Sweden. I would have probably around 20 games.”

Nikolaj Ehlers, Winnipeg Jets: “The Olympics. For small countries like where I’m from, Denmark, it’d be an honor to play in the Olympics one day. We’ve never made it. I think we have a very good chance to make it next time and not being able to play in those [games] if we were to make it would not be fun.”

Andrei Vasilevskiy, Tampa Bay Lightning: “Smaller nets, bigger equipment for the goalies. Five-on-five overtime, six-on-six.”

Auston Matthews, Toronto Maple Leafs: “I would change the dress code. It wouldn’t be no dress code, I think it would be more casual. You don’t have to wear a suit and tie every game, kind of like the NBA a little bit. Probably more like the NFL.”

Alex DeBrincat, Chicago Blackhawks: “[Auston Matthew’s] a stylish guy. Me, I’m not that stylish. I like wearing suits. [I’d like to see] for some of the guys to express more of their personality. You see the basketball guys walk in, some of them wear suits, some of them wear those fun outfits that really gets people talking. That might be a good thing to implement.”

Dylan Larkin, Detroit Red Wings: “I would extend 3-on-3 overtime to 10 minutes.”

Jaccob Slavin, Carolina Hurricanes: “Longer overtimes. I think 3-on-3 is super exciting, and shootouts are exciting, too, but 3-on-3 comes with so many opportunities and so many chances. I think if you extended it even a couple of minutes you’d have more games decided in OT rather than having it go to a shootout.”

Sam Bennett, Calgary Flames: “I’d make the nets bigger so I can score more.”

MORE NHL PLAYER SURVEYS:
Most underrated player

————

Sean Leahy is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @Sean_Leahy.

Bruins get another major bargain with McAvoy contract

7 Comments

Over and over again, the Boston Bruins find ways to sign core players at stunning discounts. They pulled off another steal with budding star defenseman Charlie McAvoy on Sunday.

Remarkably, they signed McAvoy for slightly less than what the Blue Jackets gave Zach Werenski. McAvoy’s contract is for three years, with just a $4.9 million AAV. That’s … incredible value.

Like with Werenski, it’s structured in a way that can make a future contract hefty, and open the door for eventual UFA status. But for a team that’s focused on now as much as the Bruins happen to be, this is even better. It also makes affording Torey Krug‘s next contract feel a lot more feasible. Also, Cap Friendly points out that McAvoy needs more time to reach UFA status than Werenski and Timo Meier, two players who’ve set a standard for how many RFAs approached negotiations this offseason.

When people try to beat up on the Maple Leafs for their expensive top guys, they often (almost unfairly) bring up Brad Marchand, Patrice Bergeron, and David Pastrnak only costing about $20 million combined – less than John Tavares and Auston Matthews put together. This could be another contract people cite when they shake their head in awe at what the Bruins have done.

(Now, they just need to make sure not to give away any contracts to the likes of David Backes.)

About the only knock on McAvoy, 21, is that he’s dealt with some injury issues. Beyond that, he’s a really well-rounded defenseman, one who’s been instrumental in extending Zdeno Chara‘s career.

Check out how his RAPM charts at even-strength stack up against Werenski, via Evolving Hockey:

McAvoy made a resounding first impression during the 2016-17 postseason, making his NHL debut at that stage, and impressively logging 26:12 per playoff game. He then started strong in 2017-18, generating seven goals and 32 points in 63 games. This past season provided much of the same, as McAvoy scored seven goals and 28 points in 54 regular-season contests and delivering strong work in postseason appearances.

Again, the main concern is staying on the ice, as otherwise McAvoy’s passed his early tests with flying colors.

Cap Friendly estimates the Bruins’ remaining cap space at about $3.2M, and it’s possible that RFA defenseman Brandon Carlo might eat up all of that, or almost all of that breathing room.

This is fantastic stuff by the Bruins. Again.

MORE:
• ProHockeyTalk’s 2019 NHL free agency tracker
• Your 2019-20 NHL on NBC TV schedule

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

Could Marner signing open floodgates for Laine, other star RFAs?

Getty Images
5 Comments

As people anxiously awaited the RFA logjam to finally collapse, the belief was that the dominoes might start to fall whenever Mitch Marner signed with the Toronto Maple Leafs — at least if that impasse would clear up before the season.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Maple Leafs signed Marner for a hefty sum just as training camps began (Friday, to be exact), so now we must wonder if Patrik Laine, Mikko Rantanen, Brayden Point, Kyle Connor, and other key RFAs will start following like dominoes.

We’ve already enjoyed a taste of that with RFA defensemen. The Blue Jackets really got things rolling with a bridge for Zach Werenski, while the Flyers locked up Ivan Provorov long-term and the Jets got a proactive extension done with Josh Morrissey.

Of course, every situation is different. The Bruins haven’t inked Charlie McAvoy yet, for instance. With that in mind, let’s enjoy a quick refresher on some of the most important RFA situations that may speed up now that Marner got paid.

[MORE: Maple Leafs sign Mitch Marner to big six-year deal]

Patrik Laine and Kyle Connor

Cap Friendly estimates the Jets’ cap room at about $15.45M, and even if Laine and Connor ask for less than Marner’s reported $10.893M, it’s tough to imagine them combining for less than $16M. Perhaps Winnipeg will gain newfound momentum to move a contract, such as Mathieu Perreault ($4.125M AAV for two more seasons)?

TSN’s Frank Seravalli details why the Jets have extra incentive to sort out the Connor and Laine situations before the regular season begins. Winnipeg’s already faced a tough offseason, but this can’t be easy. Maybe Kevin Cheveldayoff could turn lemons to lemonade by convincing both to come in at a reasonable cap hit, though?

Brayden Point

Entering the summer, it seemed like Point joined Mitch Marner as one of the most logical offer sheet targets, being that, like Toronto, Tampa Bay already has a lot of commitments to big-name, big-money players.

Of course, the Lightning also have those Florida tax breaks, that Florida climate, and a heck of a roster (playoff sweep or not), so the rumor is that Point brushed off any offer sheet interest quickly, and may be the latest Bolt to take less money than he’s truly worth.

Still … you wonder if Tampa Bay might want to take this down a notch or five.

Cap Friendly estimates Tampa Bay’s cap room at a bit less than $8.5M.

Mikko Rantanen

Frankly, there are quite a few analyses that put Point and Rantanen in Marner’s neighborhood.

In both Point’s case and that of Rantanen, their respective teams have one argument that the Maple Leafs lacked with Auston Matthews and John Tavares: “Hey, you can’t make more/too much more than Star Teammate X!”

Elliotte Friedman made a point along those lines regarding Rantanen versus Nathan MacKinnon, stating that the Avalanche would rather Rantanen not make $4M more than MacKinnon’s insultingly low $6.3M. The thing is, Colorado has about $15.6M in cap space, so Rantanen could certainly argue for about $4M more than MacKinnon, especially since that would still be less than Marner’s $10.893M.

Matthew Tkachuk

Tkachuk is a rung or two lower on the ladder than some of these bigger stars (he’s probably there with Connor, but we’ll see come negotiating time), but he still might want more than Calgary’s estimated $7M-ish in space. That could be a decent neighborhood for a compromise, however, as Johnny Gaudreau carries a $6.75M AAV.

Brock Boeser

With the Roberto Luongo weirdness costing them for about $3M and expensive additions like J.T. Miller and Tyler Myers, the Canucks only have about $4.1M in cap space. That could get … awkward, huh?

Travis Konency

Considering the money Chuck Fletcher threw around in making over the Flyers, you’d think Konency would want his piece of the pie. It’s not as high stakes as situations like Laine, but getting good value is crucial in this league. Cap Friendly puts Philly’s cap space at about $6.67M.

There are some other names floating out there, but the above situations are the biggest. Feel free to discuss players like Andrew Mangiapane in the comments.

MORE:
• ProHockeyTalk’s 2019 NHL free agency tracker
• Your 2019-20 NHL on NBC TV schedule

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

Maple Leafs sign Mitch Marner to big six-year deal

Getty Images
14 Comments

Just like that, the Mitch Marner saga has been settled.

The Toronto Maple Leafs confirmed that they signed the star winger to a six-year deal that carries a $10.893 million AAV.

That $10.893M cap hit ranks lower than that of Auston Matthews ($11.634M AAV through 2023-24) and John Tavares ($11M through 2024-25).

From an immediate standpoint, this makes for a tight squeeze.

Who else will remain a part of this team’s core?

Looking back at a PHT post from earlier this week, we can see that this Marner near-$11M will make for tough decisions. Here are some of the big names who will eventually need new contracts, which Marner, Matthews, and Tavares may essentially force out:

After 2019-20: Defensemen Jake Muzzin and Tyson Barrie.

After 2020-21: Goalie Frederik Andersen.

After 2021-22: Defenseman Morgan Rielly.

After 2022-23: Forwards Andreas Johnsson and Alexander Kerfoot.

After 2023-24: Stars Auston Matthews and William Nylander.

It’s interesting, also, that Tavares and Marner will see their close-to-$22M expire after the same 2024-25 season. Things could be very different beyond those two by then, but wouldn’t it be interesting if it came down to Tavares or Marner around that faraway date?

[MORE: Could Marner signing open floodgates for Laine, other star RFAs?]

A tough question of value

Plenty of reports indicated that Marner, 22, compared himself to Matthews as much as anyone else. With that in mind, the Maple Leafs must feel some relief in signing Marner for six years, thus locking him down for an extra year — and crucially, staggering things so their contracts don’t expire during the same summer.

As far as Marner being worth $10.893M? That’s subjective, obviously. Maybe it’s more important to ask: how much of an overpay would it be, if it is an overpay? Maple Leafs fans might be somewhat pleased to hear that some answer “Not so bad.”

(Sportsnet’s Andrew Berkshire provided a fascinating look at Marner’s underlying value recently, if you want some deeper reading on the playmaking winger.)

Marner set career-highs in goals (26), assists (68), and points (94) last season while finding outstanding chemistry with Tavares. Many noted the Tavares bump while trying to argue against Marner earning a ransom with his second contract, but the bottom line is that they both made each other better in 2018-19, and are likely to continue to do so in 2019-20 and beyond.

For those still suffering through sticker shock, consider that the Maple Leafs “bought” two would-be UFA years by making this a six-year contract. If the cap ceiling rises thanks to various revenue-related forces, then $10.893M might look a lot more manageable in a few years. Consider how excessive Leon Draisaitl‘s $8.5M cap hit seemed at the time; now most would label that an all-too-rare steal for the Edmonton Oilers.

But, yes, the price is steep, and maybe Dubas hasn’t handled the Maple Leafs’ big three RFAs in the best way possible (although I’d argue Nylander will ultimately be seen as a strong value).

Make no mistake about it, though. The Maple Leafs are expensive at the top level, with Marner, Tavares, and Matthews combining for a cap hit of about $33M. Ultimately, their collective efforts will determine if it is all “worth it” — which means hurtling over obstacles they haven’t yet cleared, such as, say, beating the Boston Bruins in a Game 7, or winning a playoff series or two.

MORE:
• ProHockeyTalk’s 2019 NHL free agency tracker
• Your 2019-20 NHL on NBC TV schedule

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.

How potential Marner deals might affect Maple Leafs’ salary cap

Getty Images
7 Comments

Even during the dullest moments of the hockey offseason, you could probably find at least two people arguing about Mitch Marner.

The debates really revved up this week, however, with reports surfacing from Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, along with Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger from TSN (among others).

Reports indicate a wide variety of possibilities, from shorter “bridge” deals to long-term contracts, basically all of them with eye-popping numbers.

Let’s consider the many ins and outs of the Maple Leafs’ cap situation, and how different Marner deals might fit in, by looking at things on a year-by-year basis. Cap Friendly was a major resource for this post.

2019-20, year one: Don’t bet on a one-year pact, but this is a good spot to discuss the most immediate squeeze.

Toronto must wait to put Nathan Horton ($5.35M) and David Clarkson ($5.25M) on LTIR and … that really gums up the works. To keep the details from making brains pop like corn, it figures to be tight, especially if Marner gets “in the universe” of $11M.

The Maple Leafs’ defense figures to be different after this season with Cody Ceci ($4.5M), Jake Muzzin ($4M), and Tyson Barrie ($2.75M after retention) entering contract years. GM Kyle Dubas is full of enough surprises, so who knows what lies ahead on defense?

2020-21, year two: In Tuesday’s “31 Thoughts,” Elliotte Friedman reports that a two-year deal was pondered, “a few sources threw cold water on that.”

Regardless, a big change could come after two years, as Frederik Andersen figures to get a big raise from $5M after 2019-20. Maybe a “bridge” deal would make it slightly easier to keep Andersen?

2021-22, year three: A variety of reporters point to a three-year “bridge” deal as one of the most likely possibilities at this time.

It’s also maybe the trickiest scenario for the Maple Leafs, something mentioned by the likes of TSN’s Bob McKenzie:

Marner and other RFAs might follow a path where a three-year deal is, functionally, a four-year deal to get to unrestricted free agency. Essentially, Marner would sign for X over three years, with a salary hitting a peak at year three, so that would set the stage for a qualifying offer in year four. Years five and beyond would then be open to UFA. TSN’s Darren Dreger illustrates this as well:

If it’s three years, Marner would need a new contract (technically or not) during the same offseason as Morgan Rielly. Reilly is just 25 and carries a cheap $5M cap hit, so the price could really grow. One would think Kasperi Kapanen ($3.2M) might get squeezed out.

We could also start to see Rasmus Sandin and Timothy Liljegren needing new deals around 2023 or shortly after, depending upon when Toronto starts burning those entry-level years.

2022-23, year four: If the above bridge deal with a high third-year salary happened, this is where Marner’s cost would balloon. It’s also possible – though improbable – that the two sides would simply sign a four-year deal, sending Marner to UFA status in the summer of 2023 without the gymnastics.

Following that fourth season, Alexander Kerfoot ($3.5M) and Andreas Johnsson ($3.4M) would need new deals.

Any small and medium-sized decisions would need to be weighed by how much room they leave for bigger ones, and not just potentially Marner …

2023-24, year five: Two whoppers expire in five years: Auston Matthews ($11.64M) and William Nylander ($6.96M).

It’s tough to imagine the Maple Leafs set the stage for Marner to have the opportunity to hit the UFA market during the same summer as Matthews and Nylander, which is why you don’t hear about a five-year solution very often.

Let’s be honest: that scenario could break Hockey Twitter, the Internet, or even humanity’s collective, slipping grip on something resembling sanity.

2024-25, year six: The six-year possibility doesn’t get mentioned much, but Tavares’ $11M expires after 2024-25. What if Marner figured that much of that Tavares money could transfer to his third contract? Could six years be a sweet spot for Toronto’s cost certainty, Marner getting paid, and present something of a compromise on UFA years?

(Unlikely, but just saying.)

2025-26, year seven, and 2026-27, year eight: McKenzie reports that there have been offers “in the universe” of $11M for seven or eight-year terms, but Marner reportedly isn’t satisfied because he’d get less than Matthews’ $11.64M while also signing for more than Matthews’ five-year term.

We can debate whether Marner would be worth $11M all day (motions to increasingly volatile Hockey Twitter), but Marner’s reluctance to go long-term is understandable, as for all we know, the cap ceiling could be much higher in 2025-26 and beyond.

***

Unfortunately for anxious Maple Leafs fans, Friedman, Dreger, MacKenzie, and others point to considerable divides behind Marner’s camp and the Maple Leafs.

As the above timeline shows, Toronto faces a host of complicated decisions, and plenty of tough questions even beyond Marner. Make no mistake about it, though: this Marner contract situation is absolutely pivotal, and it’s a tough nut to crack.

MORE:
• ProHockeyTalk’s 2019 NHL free agency tracker
• Your 2019-20 NHL on NBC TV schedule

James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.