Hockeyholic
Registered User
MacK will have the much more affordable contract. Only few years older. Cool. But...Matthews is a player that comes around once in a generation. You definitely take this deal if your the Avs.
Why would we? With Matthews next contract we would probably be able to fit two Mackinnons in there. Both teams says no simple as that.MacK will have the much more affordable contract. Only few years older. Cool. But...Matthews is a player that comes around once in a generation. You definitely take this deal if your the Avs.
So the fact that Matthews walked into the league and pulled down everyone's pants by leading the league in ES goals as a rookie, scoring the hardest goals in the NHL doesn't mean anything?I definitely do it if I'm Toronto (and I've done my research to know that Mac won't hold out or anything) due to both that contract and the fact that MacKinnon and Matthews will likely be separated by 10 points at most but both be 70+ point players every healthy season of their career. Getting five years of an elite first line centre at $6.3M is worth it to lose the younger player when that younger player won't be two steps better and has a contract coming up based on 2018-2019 salary cap.
I don't ever touch it if I'm Colorado. Matthews is approaching RFA, he has no emotional connection to Colorado since he wasn't drafted or developed there. He'd ask for a hefty raise. So you'd be paying a younger player more than you were paying the guy you had and it wouldn't be for a 20 point difference or Hart play vs. just a bunch of scoring.
I just don't see enough of a gap between players for it to be worth it for Colorado, even if you could guarantee that Matthews would outscore Mackinnon every season for the rest of their careers.
Why would we? With Matthews next contract we would probably be able to fit two Mackinnons in there. Both teams says no simple as that.
Who really has the highest ceiling?
Mac has establish a much lower floor than Matthews, that's why Matthews will get paid more, he's clearly earned it while Mac dropped the ballI don't care who has the highest ceiling. My last sentence made that clear. I don't think anyone has a second floor compared to the other player, so when that's the case, it's about externals. If you want to argue this is Joe Sakic vs. Mike Modano be my guest. I think it's much closer than that, so I wouldn't risk losing the player who will have a much better contract for the next five years.
If what you did in your rookie season mattered, Joe Juneau would be in the HOF.
This is actually 95% of my point in this threadFor those shouting "Lock this thread": quit it. If you don't feel like participating, move on.
I'll put my history up against yours a thousand times.This is a troll thread from a fan looking for bait. Anyone familiar with OP's post history knows what the purpose of stuff like this is.
Leafs would be fools to say no, especially when factoring in contracts
or year 3. Or MacK regresses to his previous seasons of ~50 pointsWhat if Matthews has a MacKinnon like jump in his production in year 4 or 5?
Once in a generation? That is a great joke. There’s been better seasons by younger players and then there is Connor Mcdavid!MacK will have the much more affordable contract. Only few years older. Cool. But...Matthews is a player that comes around once in a generation. You definitely take this deal if your the Avs.
Avs laugh, hang up and block the number
The islander do have a youngster better than Matthews too!So...Shanahan just uses another number next time.
Stupid comments like this make me laugh. Matthews has a better PPG and has scored more goals in a year and is good defensively. He’s also pretty damn good at even strength. It’s fine if you want mackinnon because he is cheaper but it also took him 5 years to go PPG in a season.Avs laugh, hang up and block the number
To Colorado
Auston Matthews
To Leafs
Nate MacKinnon
no agenda, don't care if it happens, not invested, it's August let's have some fun.
Matthews has the ability to be a 110-120 point player in a single season.