And yet, they have a point: in a just NHL economy where players are paid for how they will play and not how they have played, Marner arguably does deserve Matthews money.
That’s not because Marner is as good as Matthews, it’s because Matthews is also worth more than his contract. That may seem ludicrous considering the best player in the league, Connor McDavid, makes less than a million more per season, but that’s because McDavid is also worth more than his contract. Substantially more, in his case.
At present time, my model projects Marner to be a 3.6 win player next season – roughly top 15 in the league. Because he’s just 22 and now entering his prime, his combined value over the next eight years is comfortably in the league’s top 10. Based on the relationship between Game Score Value Added (GSVA) and contract value data provided by Evolving Hockey, that type of performance is worth a lot. On an eight-year deal that factors his current value, how he likely ages and modest salary cap inflation (3.75 percent per year), Marner will likely provide $95.6-million worth of value or $12-million per season on the open market. (Matthews would be at $12.9-million per season, McDavid would be at $15.5-million).
This isn’t just about Marner either, as there’s a trio of other marquee restricted free agents that will likely provide top 10-20 value over the next eight seasons. Brayden Point deserves more money than he’ll likely receive ($11.7-million per season). Sebastian Aho deserves more money than he’ll likely receive ($11.5-million per season). Mikko Rantanen deserves more money than he’ll likely receive ($10.3-million per season).
That they won’t is because the current salary hierarchy is backward and leads to players playing through most of their prime at a discount (especially as the cap rises), then earning back what they deserve on the downswing of their career. It’s why contracts for restricted free agents almost always look like steals quickly and contracts for unrestricted free agents rarely work out as intended, leading to a backlash from fans that players aren’t living up to their cap hit.
,,,
Consider Artemi Panarin, the most valuable unrestricted free agent on the market this season. Based on their respective work over the last three seasons, my model sees Marner and Panarin as near equal players without factoring for age, with Marner being slightly more productive and Panarin being better defensively.
After adjusting for age, Panarin’s projection drops to 0.2 wins fewer than Marner and the difference only grows from there. From ages 22-to-29, Marner projects to provide 28 wins of value, while Panarin from ages 27-to-34 projects to provide 21.8 wins of value. According to Evolving Hockey’s contract projections, Panarin’s projected cap hit over an eight-year term is $11.4 million while Marner’s is $9.8 million – which accounts to a $12.7-million difference over eight seasons for six fewer wins. That doesn’t add up.
...
n that vein, it would be a mistake for a team to pay Marner (or Point or Aho or Rantanen) more than $10-million per season – not when other restricted free agents of their calibre haven’t commanded a similar percentage of the cap.
If there’s any mistake a team can make though, it’s “over-paying” those players.
,,,
In this broken market Marner does not deserve Matthews money. In a more equitable market though, where players are paid based on how they will likely perform and that what they’ve done to date, he’d be worth every cent.
