The Avs have an internal cap. If they had Matthews instead of Mackinnon they would have had 1) an inferior player, and 2) $5.5m less somewhere else on a team that was already depth starved. That would mean something like no Kadri or no Landeskog. They would have missed the playoffs by a country mile. I get that Matthews should continue to improve, but Mackinnon is already a Hart trophy candidate, and how much better than that do you expect Matthews to get? He is paid quite a bit more.
If it was just "you simply pay for top players in the league" then we would have no reason not to bid up ad infinitum for every free agent. Only a couple teams offered Panarin $12m+. Why not $15m? Do they not want valuable assets?
If I'm a fan of a team that's looking to build long-term, instead of "win now" - which is probably the case of at least 10-15 teams in the league, if not more - maybe more than half - Matthews vs McKinnon is an interesting dilemma.
McKinnon is better now, clearly. But he's a bit older. He was definitely slower at start of his career with 2 down years (maybe it means nothing now that he's so good - maybe it's a bit worrisome/implies he might fall off faster too/be less consistent in his career?). And - he wasn't as high a prospect as Matthews, meaning that Matthews was always seen as the player likely to peak higher and have the better career. There very obvious reasons to pick McKinnon over Matthews - but there are also some to consider Matthews long-term as the better investment.
But to be fair - I also picked McKinnon over Matthews, i just think it's somewhat close. In the post of mine you quoted i was talking about why McDavid > McKinnon - not Matthews. You take McDavid over McKinnon even at the higher salary even if it could mean it makes it harder to land Kadri. Why? Because McDavid is better, is expected to continue being better (maybe widen the gap), and maybe for longer. He's also signed for longer so you're guaranteed to keep him longer than McKinnon.
Finally - yes you simply pay the top players in the league. I firmly believe that. But I do mean the actual
top players. As in - the top 10 or so, maybe slightly more. I don't value Panarin nearly that highly for a few reasons:
1. He's a winger
2. He's slightly older than some of the other young stars
3. He's asked to move in the past (made it clear he was leaving Columbus) - could be a bit worrysome/a sign of things to come if he doesn't like the new city
4. His peak so far is 87 points - i mean it's good, but there are many who have produced better in recent seasons.
If instead of Panarin being UFA it had been McKinnon, or McDavid, or Matthews - to me those 3 guys would
easily have been offered 13-15M+ per season by a team. Panarin isn't quite at their level.
Mcd mack and barkov of course. Anyone without o’reilly in the top ten is really thinking out of the box tho. How does no one on the stanley cup roster make the top ten? People think it was complete chemistry?
Mcdavid
Barkov
Mack
Oreilly
Aho
Zibanejad
I really think Defense should be separate
Kakko
Klingberg
Goalies anyone?
Not sure if you're being serious but....
If at a GM meeting that happens next week the St Louis Blues, the NY Rangers, The Tampa Bay Lightning and the Toronto Maple Leafs gms all get up together on stage and announce "the 4 of us have decided to donate a player each for free to another team. The players up for grabs are Zibanejad, Oreilly, Kucherov and Matthews. Which of you want which player?"
I'd be absolutely shocked if a single GM picks either of Zibanjed or Oreilly above Kucherov or Matthews. Hence - they are not as valuable an asset.
