The evidence is the fact that contract history through the cap era correlates much better with recent primary point production than recent goal production. It would also be pretty naive to believe that for decades, GMs have ignored the on-ice value of primary assists relative to goals, and left giant market inefficiencies.
Where is the evidence that goals are higher compensated than primary assists?
That is incorrect. The premise was that Rantanen was seen as worse because he is worse, and the only evidence we have supports that league perception. Colorado dumping him like that after winning a cup with him is not a good indication of being highly valued.
That is incorrect. Toronto never tried to dump Marner. Their preference has always been keeping him.
That is incorrect. There are multiple reasons why he wasn't an option. Toronto didn't want to trade him. Marner had a NMC. And two weeks ago, Carolina was looking for somebody they could re-sign in season, and Marner wasn't interested in signing mid season. Once re-signing wasn't in the cards anyway, they preferred Marner.
That is incorrect. Our GM didn't offer Marner. Carolina wanted Marner. Our GM also preferred Marner unless we knew he wasn't going to re-sign, and Rantanen would.
We know that multiple teams preferred Marner. He wasn't available.
You get answers, ignore them, and then continue making demands. Where is your evidence that goals are more valuable than primary assists?