To me, the Abdelkader deal was more about term than AAV. I think the past few years he has been reasonably worth the AAV he has carried. I don't know if that will be the case in years 5, 6, or 7 of the deal. I hope it is, but time will tell
The study was interesting. I don't know that I think it covers the full range of factors that go into a player-to-player relative ranking assessment but it had some merit. I think if you are only going to consider those three factors, you should be prefacing the final assessment as saying in terms of TOI, PPG etc. so and so is the blank best forward amongst qualified study participants.
The biggest factor I think this study kind of oversees is that it is purely a relative comparison. Demonstrating the Abdelkader's contract isn't bad in comparison to the rest of the league doesn't in of itself prove that the contract isn't bad. When you include all of the outliers (good and bad) across the league it factors into how you are defining a good or bad contract. Whereas I don't think most people when looking at one individual contract, assess how good a contract is strictly in comparison to the rest of the league. If every other team in the league were handing out huge AAVs and max term to average players would you want the DRW to do the same? If the answer is yes, then you'd probably argue that it's an acceptable practice because other teams are doing it. But don't forget, every year there are 30 teams who don't win the SC. So just because a lot of other teams do something, doesn't mean it's the right way to go (hence past lockouts for UFA overspending).
To me, assessing ABdelkdaer's contract as good or bad simply by comparing it to all other forward contracts that meet the initially criteria (200+ games etc.) only tells you what you think of the contract relative to those other contracts. If anything, if you're of the opinion Abdelkader's contract is bad, this study suggests that the average contract given out these players is on the wrong side of good.