Mitchell Marner, Unrestricted Free Agency

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

The only way he comes here is if he gets paid. I don’t think he’s worth it, offense isn’t the Sabres problem. Consistency, defense and putting a full 60 in each game is as far as I can tell. Marner doesn’t add to any of that, yes or no?

He finished 3rd in selke voting for the 23 season and I think 17th in the 24 season. He plays defense and is good at it. Unsure of where he'll fall in this year's Selke conversation but I don't think Buffalo should complain about a top 20 defensive forward. 

[Mustache of God]

Why on earth would Marner choose to sign in Buffalo? 

[PerreaultForever]

thumbs down war now with @LGR4GM what a surprise 🙂

I am always amused how we both hate Sabres losing so much but have such antithetical visions of how to fix it or build the team. Neither of us gets what we want so the debate goes on forever. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

thumbs down war now with @LGR4GM what a surprise 🙂

I am always amused how we both hate Sabres losing so much but have such antithetical visions of how to fix it or build the team. Neither of us gets what we want so the debate goes on forever. 

My plan for fixing the team would have fixed the team. I've constantly argued for hard nosed, 200ft, players at draft time. I just don't care if they're 5'10" like Zach Benson. 

I've also refused to believe tall players are inherently gritty and continue to be proven correct. By all means, sign Sam Bennett. I'd be fine with that. Start a thread about it. 

[PerreaultForever]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

My plan for fixing the team would have fixed the team. I've constantly argued for hard nosed, 200ft, players at draft time. I just don't care if they're 5'10" like Zach Benson. 

I feel the same way. 

That's not Marner by the way. 

[...]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Tage Thompson has the most 5v5 goals in the NHL over the last 2 years. Instead of viewing it your way, I view it as a chance to make our pp better which Marner is sure to do. 

Our offense would be certifiably lethal.

Maybe get another guy in there somewhere on offense who has some skill, isn't afraid to take hits and who can dish them out.

Replace Sammuelson (and Power - but that ain't going to happen) with a person not made of thin glass and who knows how to clear the front of the net.

This could be a good team and that's before finding a goalie who is top 16 NHL caliber.

[Palm Trees And Taxes]

Players like Marner rarely hit UFA. This feels like when Panarian was a UFA and the Rangers overpaid for him.

Say what you want about the Bread Man in the playoffs, but he did help the Rangers quite a bit.

Marner is the injection this franchise, and fan base, needs. 14M AAV? Done.

[Porous Five Hole]

50 minutes ago, shrader said:

I'm not a gambler but I'd consider Columbus with those numbers.  They still have all the Gaudreau money and they could be looking for a big piece (like they were with him originally) to build on their surprising season last year.

I also don’t bet on sports, but that is a good long shot. Aside from the cap space, the Columbus media and fan pressure would also be a welcome break from Toronto.  

Edited 12 hours ago by Porous Five Hole

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, inkman said:

Given how toxic it has become for Marner the last few seasons due to the insanity that is the Toronto hockey market, I could see him signing a max deal with someone like the Mammoth and disappear into the oblivion.  

[CallawaySabres]

He would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER even think about coming to this blackhole, ever. Blackhawks or Sharks have tons of money and could be on the rise with someone like Marner to play with their other superstars.

[LGR4GM]

Jfc. Toronto tried to trade Marner for Rantanen and asked him to waive his ntc. His wife was like 6 months pregnant. 

1 minute ago, CallawaySabres said:

He would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER even think about coming to this blackhole, ever. Blackhawks or Sharks have tons of money and could be on the rise with someone like Marner to play with their other superstars.

The Sharks, yes. The Hawks... nope. 

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Mitch Marner finished 3rd in Selke voting last season. What nonsense. 

Also, I can't even fathom arguing but to sign Marner because we need to upgrade the 4th ***** line. Not to mention, Marner is an upgrade over Quinn.

Agree with all of this.    

Let's say they allocate $12mil to one guy... leaving them with what?  $11m?

I don't know,  is that enough to re-sign Peterka, McLeod, extend Tuch... Quinn will probably get a relatively cheap bridge deal, and then what's left?   Enough to find a veteran partner for Power?   Upgrade Clifton, Docker?   Sign a vet goalie?     Those are all glaring needs.

[Flashsabre]

3 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Agree with all of this.    

Let's say they allocate $12mil to one guy... leaving them with what?  $11m?

I don't know,  is that enough to re-sign Peterka, McLeod, extend Tuch... Quinn will probably get a relatively cheap bridge deal, and then what's left?   Enough to find a veteran partner for Power?   Upgrade Clifton, Docker?   Sign a vet goalie?     Those are all glaring needs.

The pieces they already have in place have gotten them nowhere. Ship guys out. 
 

Adams biggest failure is identifying cheap vets that can help the team win. Every other team seems to do it but the Sabres struggle something fierce.

Sign a superstar and make the other pieces fit.

If Marner signed you could move on from Peterka. Move Byram . Bring in some solid pieces that aren’t costing $7-8 million each.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

Agree with all of this.    

Let's say they allocate $12mil to one guy... leaving them with what?  $11m?

I don't know,  is that enough to re-sign Peterka, McLeod, extend Tuch... Quinn will probably get a relatively cheap bridge deal, and then what's left?   Enough to find a veteran partner for Power?   Upgrade Clifton, Docker?   Sign a vet goalie?     Those are all glaring needs.

The $'s remaining in the '25-'26 cap are immaterial to signing a guy like Tuch to a new deal that starts in '26-'27.  So, Tuch doesn't matter for that exercise.

Really am leaning towards an expectation that they do bring in a vet goalie but with UPL going out the door this off-season as well.  So, the goalie won't eat too far into the cap unless someone you find a situation like the Swamp Cats for some reason souring on Bob and being open to trading him; and that sort of move isn't likely to happen.  Demko's the most likely established guy that MIGHT become available and he only costs $5MM against the cap in his last season.

And, personally expect both Byram and Samuelsson going bye-bye this off-season, so there's money on the backline getting freed up.  (Though also personally expect moving Byram to be opening a brand new hole in the lineup.)  So, don't expect Bernard-Docker going away and would be mildly surprised if Clifton went away either.

[Thorny]

6 hours ago, pi2000 said:

I like Marner, but Buffalo has enough scoring.

They need players who can defend (both forwards and defensemen).

==============================================================
Team  Player                   TRpm    GP   +/-   exp+/-  %min
BUF Jacob Bryson              -7.47    48    -9   -1.53   15.3
BUF Owen Power                -9.57    79   -13   -3.43   34.3
BUF Dylan Cozens             -10.93    61   -13   -2.07   20.7
BUF Sam Lafferty             -13.66    60   -15   -1.34   13.4
BUF Beck Malenstyn           -14.36    76   -16   -1.64   16.4
BUF Jack Quinn               -15.79    74   -18   -2.21   22.1
==============================================================

Instead of giving Marner $12mil find a partner for Power and upgrade Quinn, Malenstyn and Lafferty. 

Yes Selke nominated Marner doesn’t fall under “forwards who can defend”

also, no more instantly disqualifying take nowadays than, “the Buffalo Sabres have enough scoring” 

Verging on parody 

- - - 

there is no argument re: “should” we add a player better than anyone else on our team. Whether we will, well obv prob not 

Edited 7 hours ago by Thorny

[GoPuckYourself]

I think the Maple Leafs will let Tavres sign elsewhere and re-sign Marner, I just don't see how you let a talent like that walk for absolutely nothing. Either way I think he would use us to get a better deal somewhere else, why in the world would he come here if he can get the same money elsewhere on a better team? The only plus I see is that he's Canadian and maybe being that we'd be closer to his home may be the only positve and literally the only positive. 

Edited 7 hours ago by GoPuckYourself

[mjd1001]

17 minutes ago, GoPuckYourself said:

I think the Maple Leafs will let Tavres sign elsewhere and re-sign Marner, I just don't see how you let a talent like that walk for absolutely nothing. Either way I think he would use us to get a better deal somewhere else, why in the world would he come here if he can get the same money elsewhere on a better team? The only plus I see is that he's Canadian and maybe being that we'd be closer to his home may be the only positve and literally the only positive. 

Its not really "for nothing".

What would it take to re-sign him? $13m per year?  maybe a bit less or more. If you let him 'walk away', you aren't getting nothing, you are getting that $13m per year to work with that you didn't have before.

As good as he has been in the regular season, they may think they don't need him in the regular season to get to the playoffs, and for that $13m, either via free agency or trade, they can get maybe 2 good-to-very-good pieces (think a $6m guy and a $7m guy)....that they think will be better suited to help the team than Marner has been.

[GoPuckYourself]

6 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Its not really "for nothing".

What would it take to re-sign him? $13m per year?  maybe a bit less or more. If you let him 'walk away', you aren't getting nothing, you are getting that $13m per year to work with that you didn't have before.

As good as he has been in the regular season, they may think they don't need him in the regular season to get to the playoffs, and for that $13m, either via free agency or trade, they can get maybe 2 good-to-very-good pieces (think a $6m guy and a $7m guy)....that they think will be better suited to help the team than Marner has been.

If Mitch Marner signs with another team then the Leafs will have let him walk without receiving any compensation. I just don't see that happening (although there may be nothing they can do about it if he doesn't want to be there).

I would highly disagree that the Leafs think they're better off or equal without Marner in the lineup plus Matthews has been equally as bad in the playoffs. 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by GoPuckYourself

[EM88]

6 minutes ago, GoPuckYourself said:

If Mitch Marner signs with another team then the Leafs will have let him walk without receiving any compensation. I just don't see that happening (although there may be nothing they can do about it if he doesn't want to be there).

I would highly disagree that the Leafs think they're better off or equal without Marner in the lineup plus Matthews has been equally as bad in the playoffs. 

 

They are notgetting direct compensation from another team, but they are not getting 'nothing', again, they are getting cap space.

When you are a 'cap team', as the Leafs usually are, that can at times be even more valuable than a player return in a trade, if that new player is taking up cap space that limits your other options.

Edited 7 hours ago by EM88

[mjd1001]

6 minutes ago, EM88 said:

They aren't getting direct compensation from another team, but they are not getting 'nothing', again, they are getting cap space.

When you are a 'cap team', as the Leafs usually are, that can at times be even more valuable than a player return in a trade, if that new player is taking up cap space that limits your other options.

Agreed....

Its not about getting a better player than Marner.

1) is what you can get with that cap space better than Marner in the playoffs (Marner has been good in the playoffs, but not $10m+ good, let alone $13m good).

2) Its also how are you improving yourself and to what degree.  Suppose the player who takes Marner's minutes gives you 30% less production....but the 2nd player you get by splitting his cap hit among 2 players is 50% better than the bottom 6 guy or the 3rd pair D-man?  You aren't getting the 'better player', but you are getting a better fit for your team.   Now...Marner has been really productive in the regular season so you may have a net drop off in the regular season...but it isn't inconceivable that you can get a better fit in the playoffs with 2 less paid guys fitting in with the team well than you can with a "single" Marner that has not performed well recently in the post season.

For example...suppose instead of paying Marner $13m per year, they can get Sam Bennett for $9m.  Is Bennett as good as Marner overall? No, but in the playoffs he has peformed and played a lot better. That alone may or may not be an improvement. But what do you do with those extra $4m you are saving? Its not just signing a $4m player.  It can be more than that. Lets say right now Toronto plans on paying a 2nd pair D-man $3 per year if they keep Marner. Now, you can take that $3m and ADD to $4m to it and have up to $7 free to trade or sign someone. 

In this theoretical example, come playoff time Toronto may be a LOT better with Bennett and a $7m D-man than they would be in the playoffs with Marner and a $3m D-man.

However they do it, they have more options without Marner than they would with him and tying up all that cap space.

Edited 7 hours ago by mjd1001

[GoPuckYourself]

6 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Agreed....

Its not about getting a better player than Marner.

1) is what you can get with that cap space better than Marner in the playoffs (Marner has been good in the playoffs, but not $10m+ good, let alone $13m good).

2) Its also how are you improving yourself and to what degree.  Suppose the player who takes Marner's minutes gives you 30% less production....but the 2nd player you get by splitting his cap hit among 2 players is 50% better than the bottom 6 guy or the 3rd pair D-man?  You aren't getting the 'better player', but you are getting a better fit for your team.   Now...Marner has been really productive in the regular season so you may have a net drop off in the regular season...but it isn't inconceivable that you can get a better fit in the playoffs with 2 less paid guys fitting in with the team well than you can with a "single" Marner that has not performed well recently in the post season.

For example...suppose instead of paying Marner $13m per year, they can get Sam Bennett for $9m.  Is Bennett as good as Marner overall? No, but in the playoffs he has peformed and played a lot better. That alone may or may not be an improvement. But what do you do with those extra $4m you are saving? Its not just signing a $4m player.  It can be more than that. Lets say right now Toronto plans on paying a 2nd pair D-man $3 per year if they keep Marner. Now, you can take that $3m and ADD to $4m to it and have up to $7 free to trade or sign someone. 

In this theoretical example, come playoff time Toronto may be a LOT better with Bennett and a $7m D-man than they would be in the playoffs with Marner and a $3m D-man.

However they do it, they have more options without Marner than they would with him and tying up all that cap space.

I get what you mean now with the cap space, I was thinking what player in free agency or a trade could they possibly get that will be better than Marner? I get it now, I'm Polish so it takes me awhile sometimes 😀

 

 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, GoPuckYourself said:

I get what you mean now with the cap space, I was thinking what player in free agency or a trade could they possibly get that will be better than Marner? I get it now, I'm Polish so it takes me awhile sometimes 😀

 

 

Well, in fairness to you, after watching the Sabres remain at least $8MM below the cap and sometimes signifcantly lower than that, it's easy to forget that cap space CAN be an asset.  (Especially when you plan to use it on a player that might make your team better, it really is a huge asset.)

[GoPuckYourself]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Well, in fairness to you, after watching the Sabres remain at least $8MM below the cap and sometimes signifcantly lower than that, it's easy to forget that cap space CAN be an asset.  (Especially when you plan to use it on a player that might make your team better, it really is a huge asset.)

So painfully true.

[PromoTheRobot]

5 hours ago, CallawaySabres said:

He would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER even think about coming to this blackhole, ever. Blackhawks or Sharks have tons of money and could be on the rise with someone like Marner to play with their other superstars.

Buffalo has one thing going for it: it's close to Marner's family. He just had his first child and he may want to stay near his folks. Remember this is the same reason Jeff Skinner waived his NMC to come to Buffalo. I'm just sayin'.

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Well, in fairness to you, after watching the Sabres remain at least $8MM below the cap and sometimes signifcantly lower than that, it's easy to forget that cap space CAN be an asset.  (Especially when you plan to use it on a player that might make your team better, it really is a huge asset.)

I got a laugh listening to the recent Instigators podcast, after ragging on the Sabres for not spending to the cap, they pivot to "you know, Buffalo doesn't have enough cap to sign Marner AND their RFA's." 🤣

[PromoTheRobot]

6 hours ago, Mustache of God said:

Why on earth would Marner choose to sign in Buffalo? 

See above.

Edited 6 hours ago by PromoTheRobot