Kane and Toews both signed 5 year deals at 6.3 million in 2010 way below market value for both of them and defintely not long term during that time. Marleau, Vanek, and Paul Stastny, were just some of the names that had higher cap hits than them, so yeah they were paid "nicely", but they were not locked up long term, and they took much less than they were worth.
Not sure I agree they were undervalued contracts given the time(RFA's getting paid way less). Also they were 11% of the cap, just like Drai, who you are trying to paint as part of the problem in EDM so.......
Also even though they were not locked up to super long term contracts, they also certainly were not bridge deals either, unless we consider 5+ year contracts bridges now.
Kopitar was a PPG #1 centre in 2009-2010 in the first year of his contract and he was making 6.8 mill, a bargain when you look at the players that had higher caphits than him during that time. Same with Doughty who was probably the best defenceman in the league when he signed his contract.
Thats the point though, it was a bargain. A bargain that was most likely possible because Kopitar had only played 2? years in the NHL and was a young RFA. Thus his bargaining power was less then that of a player who is UFA age, or that you were purchasing a good chunk of UFA years from.
Since we are talking about bridge contracts being so awesome, that is why I am disagreeing. Getting your young hopeful stud like Kopitar signed sooner and longer is far better than playing the "prove it" game for 2-3 years promising to pay him more later. Because then later comes around and he has proven his worth and now instead of having Kopitar for like 3+ more years at 6 mil, you have to pay him 10+ mil AND he is 3 years older.
The exception to this is Crosby and Malkin so I'll give you those 2, they were paid what they were worth. Though even then after their first cup win it took them 6 years to win again, and thats with a team having the 2 best players in the league, and with the cap rising substantially.
Yeah? They still won a cup with their cap hits being super harsh, and it took them a few years to rearrange the cast around them aftwards. So? Your argument, or at least the insinuation, was that young superstar duos getting paid is hurting their team somehow, yet so far I see no example of that being true as long as those superstars are actually superstars.
Mcdavid and Draisatl are worth their contracts, they are paid what they are worth, maybe in the next 5-6 years they do win the cup, who knows, I think their in for a rough 2-3 years before we start seeing any type of improvement. There's a reason why the Oilers went the furthest they did when Mcdavid and Drai were on the ELCs.
Matthews and to a lesser extent Marner are paid their market worth, they're atleast much closer than Edm is, but their is no way they compete with the way their cap is currently strucutred, whether they got "greedy" or not with Tavares is irrelevant.
Drai is not paid what he's worth, that is untrue, he is on a steal of a deal. Easily worth Mcdavid money right now, however that furthers my point that you do not wait to sign your studs to long term contracts. If they bridged Drai, and his contract had ended in the last two years, they would have to pay him ass loads. Even McDavid's contract is sneaky good, especially if the cap was not unexpectedly stunted, as there are a couple players now making nearly as much as McDavid and are no where near as good as him.
For Toronto it is the point though. You were trying to blame Matthews and Marner for Toronto's depth issues when they are not the problem. The problem was the GM disregarding depth, and trying to build a top heavy team, RIGHT BEFORE having to pay their two studs. EVERYONE in the entire hockey world knew that they were going to be in cap hell because of it. So to single out their young studs getting paid their worth as a problem is stupid AF.
Bridge deals are not always bad, but to argue that paying 2 bonfide stars going into their prime is a problem is asinine. Also bridge contracts is how you wind up having to pay guys like Vlasic and Cooch 8 mil at the tail end of their prime going into their twilight years. They should have been paid their worth long ago, and now be in a position where their contracts were just about ending, where you can decide if you want to move on from 30 year olds, or maybe get them signed to shorter or lower priced end of career contracts depending on how good they have been.
Lastly, even if you want to argue that you take a risk signing a young potential stud long term, I would just say that it is infinitely easier to trade a 22-25yo potential star who is struggling and making a little too much, then it would be to trade a 30+yo past star who looks like he is declining making a little too much and still signed for 5+years. So even if the contract does not pan out, the chance that you can recoup or create decent assets from that young player is much higher.
