No, the way you are using cap-percentage isn't widely accepted. You are choosing to ignore the first year of the cap's impact. You don't measure the cap hit by a year it doesn't effect. It's a ridiculous use of it, which you are using in a self-serving way to defend Dubas. You measure cap-hit by the year it effects. So, no. Matthews cap-hit using Eichel's percentage is 10.25. Stamkos wasn't worse than Matthews, and we overpaid Matthews by about 2 million when you look at logical comparables. McDavid, Eichel and Stamkos. Matthews wasn't comparable to Malkin when he re-signed. Malkin finished 2nd in Hart voting, was a first-team all-star and won an Art Ross. Cap-hit percentage is widely accepted, but not by the way you are using it. McDavid won an Art Ross and a Hart. If Dubas allowed Matthews to use those as close to equal comparisons for Matthews then he is a terrible negotiator.
With how much he was paid up front... I'm not so sure. His cap hit lowers his trade value. But his real money value pretty much balances that out. Especially for "poor" teams.
It is the way pretty much everybody uses it.
10.6m+
Yeah, he was.
No, it isn't. All future contracts are negotiated against the projected future cap. Who uses it this way, you are basically claiming cap-friendly sets the industry standard, just because they choose to do it this way. You are using a system that measures cap-hit differently for players whose contracts start at the same time, which is a very flawed usage of something. Especially, when the teams never expect the player to ever play under the cap at the signing date. Prove to me it is some industry standard without pointing to cap-friendly.
They also get this upcoming season for just $700k. And this will likely be the toughest season financially for the "poor" teams. And as of now, it "averages out" to 7 million per year (in real money) for the next 5 years. Agreed. There will be a lot of interest in Marner. He has big trade value. Would Dubas even do it? That's the question.
You're probably right...
As I've shown, even if this is true, the projected future cap for Matthews was higher than it would have been for McDavid/Eichel. Using what the cap was a year later, which wasn't in line with projections in either case, doesn't make sense.
Everybody.
It measures cap hit differently for players who were signed under different cap information.
There's a lot more to a player's quality than raw points, shiny trophies largely influenced by opportunity, and useless all-star teams. They may shift value slightly, but they are not the determining factor in any sense.
It would be slightly lower, which is where it should be, as I've shown.
Everybody doesn't measure the cap this way. No one outside of cap-friendly does. It makes absolutely zero-sense to measure cap-hit against a cap they never player against, when the cap is expected to raise yearly. Otherwise, if cap-hit % was the primary part of the negotiation agents would wait until July 1st of the next year to negotiate. Find me an example outside of CapFriendly who uses it this way. It isnt' an industry standard, if it was you'd be able to find evidence supporting your claim.
You're the first person I've seen use it this way, and you haven't supported it being the best way. Cap they signed under? Makes sense. Cap projections? Difficult to estimate, but sure. Cap a year later that nobody knew? No.
It's the best measure of production, which is the primary driver of contracts for forwards. Certainly much better than raw points, awards, or all-star team selections.
There is no evidence that this is true, and every test I've done of big samples of players suggests the opposite. Regardless, none of these players were at any such threshold.
What do you base this on?
I'm not sure if this is even true, but why would Matthews get less money because of how the players on the team that he doesn't play with play?
We did not.
It is the best measure of production, which is the most important factor in contracts for forwards.
Opportunity is usually what allows an individual in a certain tier of players to get a trophy. McDavid had opportunity. Matthews did not. Their actual quality of play was not that different at that point in time.
Relative possession numbers.
That's still not really telling me what you're basing this on.
It's a more accurate measurement of the biggest factor in forward contracts than anything anybody else is using to say he wasn't worth it.
At least doing it by the time it is signed is going by known information. You're suggesting they were signed under future information, which is impossible. If we go by projections, the cap was projected to rise more following the Matthews signing.
Except it’s known that it is going to go up. So it makes no sense to use a cap hit percentage from that year. You don’t measure Matthews contract vs Marner and Rantanen under different measurements.
It was known to be going up in both scenarios. That changes nothing. It was projected to go up more when Matthews signed than McDavid/Eichel, but the NHLPA used the lowest ever cap escalator, and then a global pandemic hit.
Except you haven't posted what you are using as a measure of possession, why you are using relative on a team with completely different depth, or why that would matter nearly as much as what they actually do with the possession.
You again ignore that why should Matthews and Marner be measured under different caps. Which is ridiculous to focus on McDavid/Eichel. Measuring cap hit percentage in a year it doesn’t impact makes no logical sense.
