Since the heartbreaking first-round loss to the Boston Bruins, the Toronto Maple Leafs have seemed like a team in turmoil. Fans and hockey pundits have been calling for sweeping changes after another disappointing early exit. The team’s leadership met with the media to announce that head coach Sheldon Keefe had been fired and dramatically pronounced that “everything was on the table.”
Everyone believed the team had finally learned the lesson of history. The idea of having a ‘Core Four” of elite and well-paid forwards had shown one too many times that it could not deliver during the postseason and would be disbanded – somehow. That had to mean that Mitch Marner would be the odd man out.
It had to be Marner. Auston Matthews and William Nylander had been re-upped last season to long-term contracts. John Tavares was living his childhood dream playing for the Maple Leafs and would not soon be waiving his no-move clause. Thus, Marner was left as the movable piece.
As hockey writers and fans storied it, his no-move clause was a formality. Indeed, he could be convinced that the ice was smoother on the other side of the boards – somewhere quieter, where his agent’s negotiating ransoms would not be so newsworthy and somewhere his lack of productivity during the postseason didn’t matter so much.
Hockey writers all over Leafs Nation were click-baiting about where that perfect spot would be and who the team would bring back in return. Even if Marner had worn out his welcome in his hometown, he would be welcomed elsewhere. Right?
Finally, the Noise Is Subsiding and the Logic Beginning
A few days ago, logic started to creep into the Marner conversation. Long-time TSN hockey insider Darren Dreger provided information into the ongoing saga while speaking on the First Up show with Aaron Korolnek and Carlo Colaiacovo on TSN 1050. Dreger indicated that while a trade involving Marner was always possible, Maple Leaf’s management would prefer to keep him in Toronto and extend him.
What now? Is a more measured approach starting to take shape under the organizational guidance of new general manager Brad Treliving and (obviously) President Brendan Shanahan?
As Dreger explained in his conversation, Marner prefers to stay with the Maple Leafs and play out his contract. Because that contract includes a no-movement clause, Marner effectively controls his immediate future. Given this reality, Treliving would be inclined to keep Marner rather than explore trade options. If another NHL general manager picks up the phone with a plan, that could be a game-changer. However, the Maple Leafs organization would not proactively seek to move Marner.
The Fact Is, Marner Was Never Going Anywhere This Offseason
There’s logic to the situation. Trading a player of Marner’s caliber is filled with risks. First, it isn’t easy to replace his offensive production. Second, with the announcement that the NHL’s salary cap was rising to $88 million next season, Marner’s significant cap hit of $10.903 million is a known quantity the team can plan around.
Second, although Marner’s playoff performances left something to be desired, so have other team leaders – except, perhaps, for Nylander. At the same time, Marner’s regular-season contributions are helpful. Bringing in a new head coach in Craig Berube was doable. It was a less disruptive and more immediate solution to the team’s woes. There are no salary cap issues with a coach, and he didn’t sign a no-move clause. Perhaps Berube’s tough-love approach and fresh perspective could motivate the team – including Marner – and optimize the existing talent into a winning unit.
Dreger’s note about extending Marner might have been a bit of a surprise. Still, after the bluster and noise, it seems the Maple Leafs will aim for continuity and gradual improvement rather than a wholesale overhaul. If Dreger’s correct in his “insider information,” Treliving has decided – for now – that keeping a good player like Marner is the most logical path forward, even if Marner has some faults.
In other words, the Maple Leafs are playing it back one more time. The only change is the new coach. I’m also guessing this decision comes with a one-year, limited warranty and is good until July 1, 2025.
Thought 1: Talking a Big Game Is Easier than Delivering on It
I have made my thoughts about Marner clear over the years I’ve covered the Maple Leafs. I think he’s a great player, and I’d like to see him stay with the team. I’m not happy with how agent Darren Ferris does his job negotiating contracts for his charge. While I think Ferris is well within his rights to do exactly as he’s done it, if Marner wants to stay in Toronto as he says, he’s playing chicken with an organization that might grow tired of it and quit trying so hard.
The chance Marner would be leaving the Maple Leafs this offseason was slim to none. Anyone knowing the history of how Marner’s agent works would bet he’d push his charge to play out his contract and explore free agency to get the Maple Leafs to pony up more cash. As the song goes, Ferris was willing to Monkee(s) around and risk an injury, which would be the only thing that could derail Marner’s “Last Train to Clarksville.”
In the meantime, that left Leafs Nation “talking a big game,” which created a perception that change was possible. In reality, moving Marner was never feasible. Treliving likely knew that when he noted that “everything was on the table.” He probably believed Marner would suit up for the Blue & White for the first game of the 2024-25 regular season.
So why would the Maple Leafs go there? The answer reveals how organizations work to manage expectations. In all organizations, leaders seek to manage expectations internally and externally by creating a sense of optimism that mobilizes their team. Even if the only choice is to maintain the status quo, big talk gives the impression that an organization is making significant strides toward change. This perception helps maintain morale and engagement, where stakeholders feel their organization is forward-thinking. As a note, there’s no blame in my analysis. It’s what organizations believe they have to do to manage the narrative.
Second, lifting bold ideas to the surface can serve as a pressure release valve. It allows stakeholders to voice concerns, frustrations, or aspirations without necessitating immediate or drastic actions. That the Maple Leafs organization engaged in such talk right after another heart-breaking failure is no surprise. Everyone hopes things will improve and wants to explore how improvement might occur.
Third, the Maple Leafs might have been strategically posturing to influence the Marner negotiations by creating a sense of cognitive dissonance that could cause Marner’s team to blink. However, as history shows, the truth is Marner’s team doesn’t blink quickly. Still, by projecting ambition, the Maple Leafs organization worked to create smoother conditions even if the actual changes would be minor – like changing a coach.
In Marner’s situation, the big talk about potential trades and significant changes served several purposes. It kept fans and stakeholders engaged and hopeful about the team’s future while buying time for team management to figure out exactly what could happen. Even if more logical, less drastic decisions were on the way, the time and space between reality setting in and the fervour of change would mediate the issue—or soften the blow.
The organization’s approach allowed it to project an image of responsiveness while potentially settling for more pragmatic solutions, like changing the coach rather than trading Marner. The reality was that Marner held the Ace in the Hole and would never be moved.
Thought 2: Things Are Right Where They Should Be Given the NHL’s CBA
The fact is that Marner’s situation is precisely what the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association (NHLPA) negotiated. Given how NHL clubs took advantage of their players — and in that, the Maple Leafs’ history of Harold Ballard and Punch Imlach were perfect examples — there needed to be a more equitable balance of power between players and organizations. In the story of the dynamics of NHL player empowerment, Marner is a living example.
Marner’s situation shows how these negotiated terms function, particularly highlighting the shift of more power into players’ hands. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the league and the players’ union is designed to provide players with leverage points during their careers. Specifically, players may play out a contract and explore free agency. This ability ensures players can seek better contracts for their services once they reach the end of their previous contract.
That’s precisely what Marner’s doing. He’s approaching the final year of his contract and engaging the principles set forth by the NHLPA’s negotiations. The no-movement clause in his contract represents significant empowerment. It allows Marner to have a say in his career, effectively preventing the Maple Leafs from trading him without his consent. It represents a clear win for player rights, ensuring that players like Marner maintain some control over their professional futures.
From the organization’s perspective, this situation creates tension. Teams focus on long-term planning and financial flexibility. They prefer to trade players before their contracts expire to avoid losing them without compensation. However, Marner’s contract requires the Maple Leafs to respect his rights. In the end, while fans might not like it, it promotes a more balanced power dynamic.
About The Author
Leave a Reply