Anytime the Toronto Maple Leafs have a star in the last year of their contracts they will consistently generate attention. These storylines and speculations seem to take on a life of their own, manifesting, or at least painting valuations off of their collateral public perception. With the team stuck in their quest for glory, every detail begets a new storm of drama.
Recently, the eye of the storm is Mitch Marner. For many reasons, Marner has found himself in this position, from playoff performances to media interviews. Though management expressed a willingness to be bold, to at least consider significant change, many had already made up their minds that Marner would be dealt. The Marner camp recently expressed a desire to play out the season with the Leafs, a right afforded by his contract’s no-movement clause.
Though there are certainly points worth exploring, the minutiae of the day-to-day drama, the sound bites and speculation, do not change the bigger picture. Let’s take a look at what options the Leafs will have available to them, and how each might unfold.
Is deeper change needed?
With John Tavares entering the last year of his current contract, the Leafs “core four” will be at its most expensive next season. Tavares is on a different timeline than Auston Matthews, William Nylander, and Marner, and will be earning less on his next deal, whether that is with the Leafs or elsewhere. By that logic, this is the last season of the “core four” as we know it regardless. Still, those who wish to see fundamental change have little choice but to see Marner as the main option. After all, did management not acknowledge the need for significant change?
The cypher might lie within another concept that GM Brad Treliving has returned to throughout his tenure. The Leafs are more than four or five key players, or rather they need to be if they wish to achieve their goals. While it is easy to determine trading away a core player as significant change, the real challenge lies in adding a layer of players who can challenge the Leafs core pieces for their mantles to some extent.
While there are trends—particularly late series playoff scoring stats—that don’t look favourably upon some of the Leafs players, the main shortcomings of the team are structural. Quite simply, the Leafs blueline has not been good enough. Both teams in the Stanley Cup Final, the Florida Panthers and Edmonton Oilers, have three high-quality defencemen atop their blueline. Throughout the Matthews era, the Leafs have only had one defenceman in such a stratosphere. Unchallenged as the Leafs best option on the blueline is Morgan Rielly.
Each might have an opinion on where Rielly ranks among Evan Bouchard, Gustav Forsling, Aaron Ekblad, Brandon Montour, Mattias Ekholm, and Darnell Nurse, but unlike the Panthers and Oilers, the Leafs have provided themselves without much hope for an elite blueline. The Leafs, one might argue, have done a decent job finding ways to employ decent complementary options over the years. The team has even boasted strong defensive results overall. Their surprisingly cost-efficient bluelines only underscore the need to add another defenceman or two that can rival Rielly.
As a game of flowing reactions and anticipations, offence and defence are intertwined in hockey. Perhaps the Leafs have outperformed their blueline’s reputation by playing a more responsible, or even cautious, team game. Perhaps, by the same logic, a better blueline might help free up the Leafs forwards to attack when the lights are brightest.
Simply, a more constructive measure of significant change is building a better blueline, or at least planting the seeds of a brighter future in that regard. After all, such players are hard to come by. Even at goalie or at forward, the Leafs do have some younger players who might push their way into being considered a core piece in the near future, offering some hope. Finding a way to add defencemen of that nature is the greater priority, but there is a way for the Leafs to become a changed team, and a better team, with Marner on the roster.
Asset management worries
Just as there are logical criticisms of Marner, or the Leafs decisions as a whole to end up in this position, it is expected that the idea of asset management plays a factor in the analyses and expectations. With his no-movement clause, the Leafs potential return in a Marner deal will likely be diminished. Still, acquiring some kind of asset is better than nothing, isn’t it?
Without knowing the exact offers, it is tough to say how true this idea is. If Marner only wants to go to good teams, they likely don’t have ample cap space. This means taking back salary, like from multiple lesser players, more complementary pieces. While there are certainly players who might combine to bring a great deal of value to the Leafs, they would very likely decrease the team’s flexibility in the near future.
The bigger takeaway is that getting caught up in evaluating deals in a vacuum is not always useful. Instead, their ripple effects have a greater impact, they will affect what decisions can be made in the future. It is not a given that Marner would allow a trade, that the Leafs would entertain trading Marner, or that the return is not torpedoed, before even considering what the return is the whole concept begins to disintegrate. It is very difficult to see how the Leafs would be better this year and in the future through a Marner trade made just for the sake of satiating a desire for “big change”.
Worst case scenario?
For those who worry about asset management, the worst-case scenario might be Marner playing out his contract and leaving for nothing in free agency next summer. Undoubtedly this would be a tough pill to swallow at first, but the truth might not be so simple.
First, for this to happen Marner would need to play up to his usual standards, which naturally helps the Leafs next season. It is not impossible that Marner puts together his best season in a contract year. He would have to play well enough that the Leafs want to re-sign him but cannot, likely because he decides to earn more somewhere else. Letting Marner play out his final season likely brings the best out of him, and allows the Leafs and Marner to be crystal clear with their intentions and priorities in future negotiations.
While we continue to learn about details of how certain things have gone in the past for Marner and the Leafs, negotiations for a new deal allow for the relationship to take on new meaning. Tavares might be likely to take less on his next deal, but that will not be the case for Marner. If the Leafs want to retain Marner they will need to make a competitive offer. There is a chance that Marner receives offers beyond what the Leafs are willing to pay, and knowing what that limit is needs to be firm. Losing Marner for nothing is not ideal, as are the concepts of being forced into a bad deal or taking on players in a trade that might not be the Leafs ideal choices. Perhaps how and why are as important as for what when it comes to building a team and a program.
Establishing organizational philosophies
Luckily for the Leafs, there is a built-in solution to the problem of what to offer Marner, Nylander’s contract. While it might have taken Nylander more time to reach this level, both players are among the league’s elite wingers. Fans might have a preference for one or the other, but both are among the Leafs all-time franchise greats as well. Nylander’s current deal is beyond reflective of that, making more than several wingers of relatively equal quality. Based on these points, and the fact that an $11.5 million cap hit would represent a raise for Marner, this offer would be completely reasonable for the Marner camp to accept.
The trick is that the number is completely symbolic, representing an idea that has eluded the Leafs during the Matthews era. President Brendan Shanahan was brazen early in his tenure, declaring his intentions to build a team concept that would convince players to take less for the good of the team. Building this identity takes a lot of hard work and good fortune, but its effects are tangible, even within the Atlantic Division. The Boston Bruins have been willing to part with talent that does not fit with their team since the dawn of the salary cap era, leading to consistent success. A team currently on the rise, the Buffalo Sabres, has seen a lot of talented players on their roster, but continue to miss the playoffs.
Matching deals for Marner and Nylander helps establish this narrative in reality, building a precedent for an internal cap structure. The Leafs have shown themselves willing to pay their core players handsomely, as they did with Nylander. There is no need to offer anything more or less. A simple concept, this deal does not have to happen in haste, perhaps even until June 30th, 2025, the day before Marner becomes a free agent. Until then, the Leafs have the ability to offer Marner an extra year, which may or may not impact his decision.
If Marner decides to leave for a few hundred thousand dollars more per season, or perhaps even a situation he perceives to be better, the Leafs should hold firm. It is possible that a team is willing to pay more, but it is unlikely that team will be as good as the Leafs are. If Marner does walk it might hurt the Leafs in the short term, but they would have new opportunities on the trade market and free agency afterwards. This is a path to change that many are already hoping for.
Marner walking establishes some precedent for an internal cap structure as well. Symbols are powerful tools, and establishing this team concept is worth something on its own. On a season-to-season basis the ultimate goal is the Stanley Cup, but from a long-term perspective, establishing a team concept that outlives any current player is a lofty legacy.
