What is your definition of “overpaid”. My definition is above fair market value. Considering we werent the highest bidder or even 2nd highest for that matter, that is by definition not overpaid.
Market value is what you are worth. If a team pays $1M less than market value then you are not "overpaid" regardless of what YOU think he's worth which is absolutely not the point of this discussion.
Yeah, I get it. You think he sucks in the playoffs blah blah blah.
He's been a 1st or 2nd team All Star, that's top 4 wings in the league, 3 out of 5 years he's been a Ranger.
Auston Mathews? Twice in an eight year career.
MacKinnon? 3 times in 11 years
Barkov? Never
Pastrnak? 3 in 10
Marner? 2 in 8
Tkachuk (Matthew)? 2 in 8
Panarin? 4 in 9. 3 in 5 as a Ranger
Yeah, he's elite. Not overpaid no matter how you're looking at. Possibly the best UFA signing in New York Sports history and certainly in Rangers history.
This discussion is just dumb.
The above, IN A VACUUM, is not unreasonable as to "market value".
Howev, we must be honest about the entirety of the equation.
The contract is for the entirety of all games played, not just in season ones, including pre and post season.
While he has returned to excelling this past season [after a yr or 2 of being ordinary], he has remained invisible post season. That true and legit hit on his overall performance needs to be factored in, and not ignored.
But setting that aside, there is another recognized economic principle: opportunity cost.
Guys like Kreider, Tro, Chytil, are great value because of production AND the salary #.
When that # is not high, it creates salary cap room sufficiently ample enough to seek a quality add.
When it is high, regardless of production, it does not afford a quality add.
Fox is in the middle; high production at all times, but at 9.5, costs so much that it restricts, to the point of prohibiting, quality adds.
Conclusion: bread delivers in season, but IS overpaid compared to other stars