Rumor: Dater: MacKinnon Seeking to Be the NHL's Highest Paid Player

[Krimson]

MacKinnon has obviously been massive underpaid for a while now. He signed the contract to win I think. Now everyone is getting paid. I’d like to see the Av’s keep the band together, not max contracts and dominate the league for a couple years.

 

[The Red Line]

Pretty sure Crosby was one of the 5 highest paid players going into 2014-15. I think he may have even be in the top 2 or 3. Ovy had a 9.5 cap hit that's the only one that was higher.

lol before you said 2016, now you're going back to 2014, moving the goalposts is a pathetic way to argue. Also Crosby was THE BEST PLAYER in the world then, not really comparable.

Again I ask you... what point are you actually trying to make???

My original point: signing massive contracts based on past success didn't work out for the Hawks. That was literally all I said and it is a fact.

Why are you digging this hole for yourself?

 

[Soundwave]

lol before you said 2016, now you're going back to 2014, moving the goalposts is a pathetic way to argue. Also Crosby was THE BEST PLAYER in the world then, not really comparable.

Again I ask you... what point are you actually trying to make???

My original point: signing massive contracts based on past success didn't work out for the Hawks. That was literally all I said.

Why are you digging this hole for yourself?

What is your alternative then? Not pay MacKinnon if he wants 12? Let him walk?

If the Hawks said no to Toews and Kane, then what? They walk and they would magically get another Stanley Cup because of "cap space"?

By the way 12 mill for MacKinnon IS a freaking discount already. You have bums like Huberdeau who care barely score a goal in a playoff stretch making 10.5.

 

[Krimson]

Pretty sure Crosby was one of the 5 highest paid players going into 2014-15. I think he may have even be in the top 2 or 3. Ovy had a 9.5 cap hit that's the only one that was higher.

EDIT: I think Malkin's 9.5 extension was also in place, so Crosby was 3rd highest paid by cap hit, 2nd highest paid in actual salary, but the highest paid hockey player period when factoring in endorsements.

You know Ovechkin has a 9.5 cap hit for the next 4 years right? Until he’s 40. Off topic it will be interesting to see which player between him and Malkin is better down the stretch of their careers at their contracts.

 

[TheRumble]

Things people need to keep in mind here:

Mackinnon's curent contract was signed in $6.3 million was signed in the 2016 off season when he was coming off years of 0.79 ppg, 0.59 ppg, and 0.72 ppg - that roughly translates into seasons of 64 points, 48 points and 59 points in an 82 game season. Mackinnon didn't give the Avs a discount out of the kindness of his heart, his $6.3 cap his was a more than fair deal at the time. An ELC player back then got about $1 million per every 10-15 points and then he'd get a bit of a premium based on how many UFA years it would have covered.

NHL players aren't NBA players. Their endorsement deals aren't nearly as lucrative and there aren't as many markets where it's possible to bring in that kind of money. LeBron has a shoe deal that is more lucrative than his NBA contract. That will never happen in the NHL, not even close. Crosby reportedly has $4 million in endorsements and he's the top NHL guy - probably second next to Matthews now though.

The NHL cap is gonna jump by $10 million within the next two seasons. Everyone here glosses over the COVID era NHL. The owners would take the hit on revenues briefly but the players would have to deal with a flat cap until the debt was paid off. That debt is coming off in 24 or 25 and the league will have bigger TV revenues and the Seattle money to boost it. We'll be seeing a $95 million cap by 2025 and it'll be easily over $100 million before the end of the decade. People forget how big cap jumps were pre-covid. From 2014 to 2019, the cap went up $10.5 million and that took place entirely with the crappy NBC TV deal. You guys are out to lunch if you think the COVID era flat cap will be the standard going forward in the ESPN/TNT era. The Avs will be fine even if Mackinnon gets $14 million.

The Avs are very lucky that:

a) They won the Cup in the contract window of their star players when they were all on cost controlled deals

b) They locked up Makar when they did at that number because going forward he's gonna be the best player in the league, best on the team and provide the most value for his contract.

c) Mackinnon had one of the more unusual career breakouts. He was a 60 point player at best for four years and suddenly became a 100 point player in year 5. There's no way a player of Mackinnon's caliber would ever get caught dead playing on a $6 million dollar deal out of his ELC again unless he specifically had that development arc.

 

[The Red Line]

What is your alternative then? Not pay MacKinnon if he wants 12? Let him walk?

If the Hawks said no to Toews and Kane, then what? They walk and they would magically get another Stanley Cup because of "cap space"?

By the way 12 mill for MacKinnon IS a freaking discount already. You have bums like Huberdeau who care barely score a goal in a playoff stretch making 10.5.

Why do I need to come up with alternatives? My point was it didn't work out for the Hawks.

50 failed straw man arguments later, you still haven't acknowledged that fact. Your GM could negotiate better? I dunno, it isn't my problem to come up with the alternative. Did Kucherov, Crosby, Kopitar, etc. demand to be the highest paid players in the league after they won cups?

You act like the ONLY option is for him to demand to be the highest paid player in the league. He isn't even the best player in the league (and according to the vast majority of Avs fans isn't even the best player on the team).

Again. PLEASE answer this directly: what point are you actually trying to make? And how is it relevant to my original comment?

 

[Krimson]

No, the contract was signed AFTER the 3 cups.

They won exactly NOTHING after they handed out those achievement contracts. So, no, it didn't work out for them at all. You want your team to be where the Hawks are right now?

Why bring up Crosby signing for less money when the topic is Mackinnon demanding to be the highest paid player in the league? How is that relevant? That is the opposite of what is happening.

Crosby signed a 12 year contract the year before they changed the rules. Looks like he going to be the only player to play it out.

What is your alternative then? Not pay MacKinnon if he wants 12? Let him walk?

If the Hawks said no to Toews and Kane, then what? They walk and they would magically get another Stanley Cup because of "cap space"?

By the way 12 mill for MacKinnon IS a freaking discount already. You have bums like Huberdeau who care barely score a goal in a playoff stretch making 10.5.

Probably should’ve said no to Toews at that number.

 

[Soundwave]

Why do I need to come up with alternatives? My point was it didn't work out for the Hawks.

50 failed straw man arguments later, you still haven't acknowledged that fact. Your GM could negotiate better? I dunno, it isn't my problem to come up with the alternative. Did Kucherov, Crosby, Kopitar, etc. demand to be the highest paid players in the league after they won cups?

You act like the ONLY option is for him to demand to be the highest paid player in the league. He isn't even the best player in the league (and according to the vast majority of Avs fans isn't even the best player on the team).

Again. PLEASE answer this directly: what point are you trying to make?

I think it worked out fine for the Blackhawks. Firstly Kane is worth that contract, he still has been one of the best players in the world.

Toews they overpaid a bit, but what, if Toews was paid 2 million less they magically have another Stanley Cup?

I don't think so.

The fact is basically any core in the modern NHL is only going to get you 2-3 Cups probably at maximum. You can sell off beloved players and piss them off but that approach doesn't guarantee you anything anyway.

 

[The Red Line]

I think it worked out fine for the Blackhawks. Firstly Kane is worth that contract, he still has been one of the best players in the world.

Toews they overpaid a bit, but what, if Toews was paid 2 million less they magically have another Stanley Cup?

I don't think so.

The fact is basically any core in the modern NHL is only going to get you 2-3 Cups probably at maximum. You can sell off beloved players and piss them off but that approach doesn't guarantee you anything anyway.

Lol you are being intentionally obtuse, you have changed your argument with every post... it is pathetic.

No, it didn't work out for the Hawks. They won nothing, and a year after the contracts kicked in they began their streak of missing the playoffs every year. They had to sell off all of their talent because of their top heavy contract structure. Those contracts were the beginning of the end. Everyone knew it at the time, and it has been proven since based on actual history.

If you think making the playoffs ONLY the first year of an 8 year contract is a measure of success then good luck to you and your team, lmao.

Please, please answer my question. WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE?

 

[Soundwave]

Lol you are being intentionally obtuse, you have changed your argument with every post... it is pathetic.

No, it didn't work out for the Hawks. They won nothing, and a year after the contracts kicked in they began their streak of missing the playoffs every year. They had to sell off all of their talent because of their top heavy contract structure. Those contracts were the beginning of the end. Everyone knew it at the time, and it has been proven since based on actual history.

If you think making the playoffs ONLY the first year of an 8 year contract is a measure of success then good luck to you and your team, lmao.

Please, please answer my question. WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE?

My point is I don't think that decline was entirely because of those contracts.

For one you have to freaking pay Patrick Kane 10 million because he IS a 10 million dollar player.

Secondly the amount overpaid on Toews isn't what suddenly made them into a bad team.

Like you guys understand that one Cup run takes a lot out of a group right? The toll it takes on a body? After about 3 or 4 of those, your core group is going to be toast, it's just the nature of the game.

You can sell off your core while they're still sorta in their primes, but your not gaurunteed any success from that either and your fanbase will never forgive you for doing that.

The best thing to do is simply pay up, the sun only shines on any dog's ass in this league for a limited time when it comes to Cups. There's more to life in the NHL than just Cups.

If you can't be over the moon happy as a Blackhawks fan with all the good fortune you got to experience the past 15 years with the Kane-Toews era because you had bad seasons towards the end, the NHL isn't for you period. You're not going to be happy with any franchise, ever if that is your metric for success (always being a top, Cup contending team with no down cycle period).

 

[Krimson]

I’m just going to say that I don’t think Nathan MacKinnon is going to squeeze every last dime out of the franchise that stuck with him all these years. Maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it. He will sign the same contract Makar got and the Avs will work around that. 1C and 1D locked up. Not bad.

 

[The Red Line]

My point is I don't think that decline was entirely because of those contracts.

For one you have to freaking pay Patrick Kane 10 million because he IS a 10 million dollar player.

Secondly the amount overpaid on Toews isn't what suddenly made them into a bad team.

Like you guys understand that one Cup run takes a lot out of a group right? The toll it takes on a body? After about 3 or 4 of those, your core group is going to be toast, it's just the nature of the game.

You can sell off your core while they're still sorta in their primes, but your not gaurunteed any success from that either and your fanbase will never forgive you for doing that.

The best thing to do is simply pay up, the sun only shines on any dog's ass in this league for a limited time when it comes to Cups. There's more to life in the NHL than just Cups.

If you can't be over the moon happy as a Blackhawks fan with all the good fortune you got to experience the past 15 years with the Kane-Toews era because you had bad seasons towards the end, the NHL isn't for you period. You're not going to be happy with any franchise, ever if that is your metric for success (always being a top, Cup contending team with no down cycle period).

Ugh please don't call me a Blackhawks fan.

So you are basically, even if very annoyingly and begrudgingly, agreeing with my original point.

For the record, Mackinnon should obviously be paid - but I think him being the highest paid player in the world (when he's not even the best player on his own team - according to Avs fans) is a mistake that should be avoided. I also think it will be avoided and this is all part of the negotiation.

That's a lot of typing for us to basically agree on what history has already proven: the Hawks won nothing after those contracts were signed.

 

[Soundwave]

Ugh please don't call me a Blackhawks fan.

So you are basically, even if very annoyingly and begrudgingly, agreeing with my original point.

For the record, Mackinnon should obviously be paid - but I think him being the highest paid player in the world (when he's not even the best player on his own team - according to Avs fans) is a mistake that should be avoided. I also think it will be avoided and this is all part of the negotiation.

That's a lot of typing for us to basically agree on what history has already proven: the Hawks won nothing after those contracts were signed.

I don't agree that they magically would've won more without those contracts or like things were great and Cups were being won and then contract increases happened so Chicago couldn't win again.

Their run was done, 3 Cup wins does a number on the body and climbing that mountain again is just bordering on impossible. The Cup runs had taken their toll on Toews, Keith, and Seabrook especially.

3 is more than good enough for any core group anyway, that's an embarrassment of riches in the NHL.

 

[SnipeShowJB11]

He's going to get it as well. He won his cup and now he's earned his pay day after being significantly underpaid for the majority of his last contract.

That's because he was nothing special for the first part of his career.

 

[bossram]

So Much for him saying a while back that he would take a pay cut to help Colorado stay within cap and build and balanced team

“I took less and I’ll take less again”

 

[bossram]

I’m just going to say that I don’t think Nathan MacKinnon is going to squeeze every last dime out of the franchise that stuck with him all these years. Maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it. He will sign the same contract Makar got and the Avs will work around that. 1C and 1D locked up. Not bad.

Uh, there is a 0% chance Mack is signing the same deal as Makar.

 

[The Red Line]

I don't agree that they magically would've won more without those contracts or like things were great and Cups were being won and then contract increases happened so Chicago couldn't win again.

Their run was done, 3 Cup wins does a number on the body and climbing that mountain again is just bordering on impossible. The Cup runs had taken their toll on Toews, Keith, and Seabrook especially.

3 is more than good enough for any core group anyway, that's an embarrassment of riches in the NHL.

Would they have made the playoffs more than once? One first round exit is hardly a harbinger of success. They got rid of Panarin, Teravainen, Byfuglien, Saad, Leddy, Shaw and MANY more players because they couldn't afford to keep them due to a tiny handful of players being massively overpaid based on PAST success. I bolded it again so you might actually acknowledge that part, even though you keep bringing up 3 cups, which were BEFORE the contract was signed, which is irrelevant to the argument. Read it again if you're having a hard time understanding it.

The point is - massive contacts handcuff a team. This is a salary cap league, and it isn't very hard to understand that.

This is the most roundabout argument I've ever been a part of, and you have yet to establish what point you are even trying to make.

If you are an Avs fan and you are ok with Mackinnon (not even the best player on your team, according to your own fanbase, and DEFINITELY not the best player in the league) being the highest paid player in the league... then fine, good luck with that.

Again, I think he should and will get paid good money, I also think he won't end up with the highest contract in the league. Still not sure what point you're trying to make because you've changed your argument with every post.

 

[Krimson]

Uh, there is a 0% chance Mack is signing the same deal as Makar.

True. I wasn’t saying he should. Who’s the better player though?

 

[tiger_80]

Not surprising but I thought earlier he was talking about taking a discount to help the team.

He already took it during his previous contract. The Avs got their cup. Time for MacKinnon to get his cash.)))

 

[bossram]

True. I wasn’t saying he should. Who’s the better player though?

You literally said, “he will sign the same contract as Makar.”

 

[Krimson]

All I’m saying is I’d take the 11-12 X 8 if I was MacKinnon to play with Makar for the next 5 years instead of trying to break the bank. If he was really smart he’d play this year out and go full FA when the cap goes up if it’s about money.

 

[Soundwave]

Would they have made the playoffs more than once? One first round exit is hardly a harbinger of success. They got rid of Panarin, Teravainen, Byfuglien, Saad, Leddy, Shaw and MANY more players because they couldn't afford to keep them due to a tiny handful of players being massively overpaid based on PAST success. I bolded it again so you might actually acknowledge that part, even though you keep bringing up 3 cups, which were BEFORE the contract was signed, which is irrelevant to the argument. Read it again if you're having a hard time understanding it.

The point is - massive contacts handcuff a team. This is a salary cap league, and it isn't very hard to understand that.

This is the most roundabout argument I've ever been a part of, and you have yet to establish what point you are even trying to make.

If you are an Avs fan and you are ok with Mackinnon (not even the best player on your team, according to your own fanbase, and DEFINITELY not the best player in the league) being the highest paid player in the league... then fine, good luck with that.

Again, I think he should and will get paid good money, I also think he won't end up with the highest contract in the league. Still not sure what point you're trying to make because you've changed your argument with every post.

I don't think they win again even with Toews at say 7 and Kane at 8.5, I don't see them winning another Cup or even being a top end team.

The 3 they won took a toll on that group, so like just having one extra really good player is not moving them up to Cup contention from not making the playoffs at all.

My point is multiple Cup runs take the gas out of a team no matter what. Shaving a million or two off a contract is not the reason the Hawks went from a Cup champion to not even making the playoffs, nor would they magically go from missing playoff to Cup contender if they had say 4 million extra cap dollars to work with (take 2 million off Toews' deal, take 2 million off Kane's deal).

 

[Buck Naked]

It works like this on HF:

- prior to their draft, they're too young to accurately assess
- the moment they're drafted, they're total shit because they're not proven yet, but the fans of the team that drafted the prospect think he's the greatest player of all time
- once they're young and established in the NHL, the clock is ticking on the years of team control so they're not worth as much in a trade as a 14-year old that can do fancy hockey tricks on social media
- once they're on their 2nd contract they're going to eventually be a UFA so they suck
- once they're on their 3rd contract they're old as shit so they doubly suck
- if they're 35+ they should honestly be dead and buried because they don't deserve to play over a prospect that can't even cut it in the AHL

Also HF

*Person who works in hockey reporting reports something (which of course is their job)*

HF: "Nah, don't like this guy. Not true."

 

[bobholly39]

Good for him, he should be.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

One would think this is inverted logic since taking a little less means a shot at more cups.

He helped get COL their cup. he's been under paid for years and years now, it's completely understandable if he wants to get as much as he possibly can now. and he's earned that right.
he out grew that last contract in like the first year