Have you ever considered the possibility that the majority opinion can be laughably incorrect? If nobody thought it was cheap or any kind of discount then they simply weren't thinking it through very much. Again, I have made the point about what the market was at that time. Plenty of players like guys you brought up were getting longer term on their contracts and Marleau took two years. I seem to remember a lot of people believing for one reason or another that Marleau was around 5.5 mil at that time but that sort of figure doesn't mean much unless you attach a term to it because that affects the asking price of UFA's. It always has. It always will. Consistently leaving that out of the equation is to be incomplete with how to legitimately value a player and his contract.
I think you're just letting your memory of something that happened 17 years ago in your own bubble bias you into some exaggerated thinking. Either way, hindsight should correct that. In a market where 3-6 year contracts are being handed out to UFA's, Marleau asked less of the team by taking two years. Maybe it's a higher AAV than what he deserved at the time but that's a hard argument to support given back-to-back point-per-game seasons at the time as a center. Centers get premium dollars and contracts were going to escalate. I just find it to be a very untenable position to pretend like he couldn't have gotten more on the open market than two years even if he got what you thought he was worth at the time which would have been more than what he got re-signing in San Jose then. The numbers and the market then just don't support your opinion and if the majority held that opinion, they were wrong too.
Hey, I just happened to have agreed with the majority opinion at the time the second I saw that signing. I had a dollar figure in mind for what Patty was worth and would have preferred to ship him if we went over that caphit I had in my mind. 5 million dollar player at 2-3 years was what I saw Patty as. I could live it it went to 5.5. Didn't like seeing the 6.3 million caphit when a significantly better player did the team right by taking way less than his market value.
As I recall we had a large amount of RFA's who needed new contracts and not much wiggle room.
-Ehrhoff's 2 year bridge was done and he was up for a big raise
- Ryane Clowe was done his ELC and looked really good
- Steve Bernier's ELC was up and I still thought he was going to break out eventually because Power forwards take longer to develop and he was a 1st rounder.
- Ill be honest, i didn't feel the same about Marcel Goc, despite him being a 1st rounder. and yeah, his ELC was also up.
- Matt Carle's ELC was up the next year and he had just scored a decent chunk for a rookie Dman
- Milan Michalek's ELC was up shortly the next year and he was already looking great
And for the record, at the time, I did not think the Salary cap would keep increasing as much as it did. A lot of people didn't. It was all still new to us.
39 million to 44 million to 50 million, but then they started talking about pumping the breaks on increases for a few years because Sather was causing complaints by doing Sather things and overspending.
So yeah, there was a real fear. We had already lost Hannan on july 1st and he was considered a top 3 defensive defenseman in the game at the time. I was actually sad to lose Toskala, but that couldn't be helped. Thankfully we were able to eject Bell with him and get the Cooter pick.
At the time all we could see was "wow, we are paying Marleau almost 2 million more a year than Spezza when he isn't as good", or 'wow, Marleau makes more than Sundin or Kovalchuk now and he's just a supporting player"
They lied and let it go up one more year to 56 million before pumping the breaks in 08/09, so the Marleau contract became acceptable to me.
So yeah, sure, in hindsight, its fine. At the time? Marleau was to Thornton what Kadri was to Mackinnon a few years back