13.5 is a fair deal, but id argue it doesn't fit with how this teams cap is structured.
Mitch is going to want the same deal, Nylander is going to want close to Matthews old contract.
One of them needs to be traded to show them that in a cap world these contract demands mean you cant stay in your preferred destination and get overpaid. You either like it here and take a hit, or you leave and get paid.
People keep missing the point. Throw "fair deal" out the window when it comes to a hard cap. The days of being fair, or cut-and-dry, were thrown out the window the day the NHL instituted a hard cap.
How is it
fair that Connor McDavid doesn't have a fluid lock on being the highest paid player in the NHL (by a lot) each year? How is it fair that Matt Tkachuk signed for 9.5 million x 8 years, scoring back-to-back 40+ goal, 104 and 109 point seasons in addition to 34 points in 32 playoff games while Mitch Marner is being paid 10.9 million on a shorter deal that he signed years ago?
There is no such thing as
total fairness or worth in the NHL these days -- a lot goes into determining that, such as market, team cache and desirability, opportunity to win, a GM/team's desperation to sell tickets, a player prioritizing winning over dollars, etc.
Saying "13.5 million is fair for Auston Matthews" doesn't make sense to me. What is that
fairness based on exactly? If it's comparable contracts, Matthews shouldn't make anything more than MacKinnon's 12.6 x 8. That would be
fair based on comparing deals. Why does Matthews deserve a million more than MacKinnon, especially on lesser term? He doesn't. So paying him that could be considered
unfair to the Leafs.
Are we basing
fairness on the same (flawed) John Tavares UFA argument, which is: "Other teams would gladly pay Matthews 13.5 so it's only fair the Leafs do"? That line of thinking is broken on many levels. Sure, there are some teams who would pay Matthews even more than 13.5 a year because they can't draw a crowd, are struggling for popularity in their market, or flat out stink. But that doesn't mean the Leafs should be held hostage by this premise considering they are a great market, with great players, great fans, are considered hockey royalty, and should be able to offer Matthews annual chances to compete for a Cup
if he does his part.
The only fair thing that both Matthews and the Leafs can do in a hard cap NHL is cordially agree to a win-win deal that:
1. Pays Matthews extremely well and on par with, or above, 99% of other great superstars.
2. Is long-term in nature so both the club and the player equally commit to the end goal of winning Cups.
3. Takes into consideration the Leafs other stars that need a cut so Matthews isn't on an island shouldering all the burden. Any deal signed must still leave enough left over for the betterment of both Matthews' and the team's success.
That ^ is the only criteria that should define "fair" in this particular case. Anything else (including 13.5 x 4) is completely one-sided in Matthews' favor. He's getting everything without concession and the Leafs are being bent over. This is not
fair unless you're only interested in cheerleading for Matthews.
This is why I still firmly believe that the only
win-win outcome should be matching MacKinnon's 12.6 x 8.
Matthews joins MacKinnon as the highest paid in history and will end up making about 200 million in salary if he remains healthy after this deal. The Leafs can then likely manage to squeeze in both Nylander + Marner and have more money down the line (as the cap increases) to surround Matthews & co. with even more support to help them win Cups.
It's not difficult.
Unless the player doesn't care about winning Cups and only wants every dollar. In that case, it's
fair for the Leafs to trade him because that type of player is beyond selfish and will never prioritize team success.
