It has nothing to do with how they play going forward after the contract. That will determine whether the contract turned out to be a good one or a bad. I am talking about whether a negotiation and deal makes the player and/or team look bad.
No. Neither Tampa or the Avs have spent the summer aggressively trying to sign their player. Marner is the one who sought out offer sheets. Marner is one whose camp said several embarrassing things last season. Marner is the one who is in Switzerland. None of that looks good.
If either Point or Rantanen eventually get a contract that looks like an overpay and results in the team needing to trade away a good player to cover the excessive contract then both the player and the team will look bad.
If what it takes to get Marner to agree to sign is so high that it results in the requirement that one of Kapanen, Johnsson, Kerfoot or Ceci is traded then the deal will make both the team and Marner look bad.
If someone is a fan of the team and Marner's demands have made the team worse, and made the team's cup chances worse - then yeah - fans should care. Bizarre that this even needs to be stated.
And, of course, if it is a contract that becomes widely criticized then it wouldn't surprise me in Marner's production goes down significantly (something that should already be expected because his oiSH% was completely unsustainable last year anyway).
Nylander had a crappy season. Matthews was playing at a 50 goal, 50 assist pace (over 38 games) before the contract was signed. After his widely criticized contract he played at a 38 goal, 36 assist pace (or 30 games).