MacKinnon signs extension with Colorado

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/PierreVLeBrun/status/1572259467387088897

[herman]

Double-double

[bustaheims]

Colorado paying back some of the discount they got on MacKinnon's previous deal.

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/reporterchris/status/1572262043234746371

McDavid's 8 year deal was for $100mil total and had $86mil in signing bonuses. So MacKinnon edges him out by $100k on the AAV.

[Joe]

I like the passive aggressive extra 100k

[L K]

Just so we are clear.  Mackinnon signing his first contract when he plays like a superstar gets paid like one.   The narrative of how much of a team player Mackinnon was for having a cheap deal when he signed it at a time when he wasn't the top 5-10 player that he is now can finally die.

Now let's go back to calling Matthews selfish

[Frank E]

He obviously doesn't care about winning another Cup.

[Dappleganger]

He obviously doesn't care about winning another Cup.

One was all he needed.

[Nik]

Tough deal at that money. No way getting around it. At that price you have to basically be a top 5 player in the league every year just to basically be breaking even.

Obviously he's shown that he can do that but doing that from 28 to 36 is a different beast. He obviously deserves the money from a fairness perspective but given the reality of the cap from a bloodless standpoint I genuinely wonder if anyone is worth that deal at that age.

[Zee]

He obviously doesn't care about winning another Cup.

He's still on his team friendly deal for this season, but yeah, so much for the narrative that other team's players take home town discounts and only the Leafs pay through the nose.  He's now the highest paid player in hockey (or will be starting next season) to be usurped by Matthews when he signs his 8 year Leafs extension next July.

[Significantly Insignificant]

I believe this aged poorly:
https://tipofthetower.com/2019/12/05/toronto-maple-leafs-nathan-mackinnons-contract-comments/

"We have guys that we wouldn't (otherwise) be able to bring in," MacKinnon said. "On my next deal, I'll take less again. Because I want to win with this group."

[Nik]

I believe this aged poorly:
https://tipofthetower.com/2019/12/05/toronto-maple-leafs-nathan-mackinnons-contract-comments/

"We have guys that we wouldn't (otherwise) be able to bring in," MacKinnon said. "On my next deal, I'll take less again. Because I want to win with this group."

Or not considering he did win with that group and he very arguably could have gotten more as a UFA.

[Significantly Insignificant]

I believe this aged poorly:
https://tipofthetower.com/2019/12/05/toronto-maple-leafs-nathan-mackinnons-contract-comments/

"We have guys that we wouldn't (otherwise) be able to bring in," MacKinnon said. "On my next deal, I'll take less again. Because I want to win with this group."

Or not considering he did win with that group and he very arguably could have gotten more as a UFA.

I probably should have used more words.

Those particular comments were levelled at Matthews, Marner and Tavares.  Here's why I don't really think that it's an accurate statement and hasn't aged well.

On the first point that he took less so that they could build a winning team isn't entirely accurate.  He took what he was offered, which was less because at the time of him signing that contract, he hadn't lived up to his potential.  This idea that he took less because he was trying to build a winner isn't actually true.  He took what would have been considered fair market value for his level of play at the time.  Comparing what happened to him during his contract negotiations to Matthews and Marner contract negotiations isn't fair.  Matthews and Marner were living up to the hype, whereas he had not yet, and it was a gamble because he may not of.  Nobody levelled those comments at McDavid, why are Matthews and Marner held up as these players that don't care about winning because they signed fair contracts?  I mean this is a peer calling them out.

So now lets move on to Tavares.  It's possible that MacKinnon would have gotten more on the open market. I feel that the UFA contracts the last couple of years have been a little muted due to the financial situation, so it is in the realm of possibility that the deal he got from the Avalanche is pretty close to what he would have got on the open market.  It's hard to know, but he is making the most in the NHL now, more than McDavid, so I don't know how much further other teams would have been willing to go. I agree that it is possible he could have received a max deal from someone, but we don't really know what would have happened.

Regardless of what MacKinnon would have gotten on the open market though, we know that Tavares took less to play for the Leafs.  He did exactly what MacKinnon says he did.  So levelling that comment at Tavares seems hypocritical now.  If it's not about the actual dollars, and more about leaving money on the table, then Tavares did that to play for the Leafs, so that comment doesn't apply to Tavares.

[Zee]

I could see a player buying into that mentality of "I'll take less so the team can build a winner" even though the agent would be advising against that.  I mean look at McDavid who had every right to demand the max 20% of the cap but didn't.  MacKinnon has won his Cup though, so at that point you've been on a winner, now pay up beotch.

[Nik]

I probably should have used more words.

Those particular comments were levelled at Matthews, Marner and Tavares.  Here's why I don't really think that it's an accurate statement and hasn't aged well.

So, for what it's worth, I don't think those comments were directed at anyone on the Leafs. In the Forbes article that your link refers to the author, not Mackinnon, uses the Leafs as an example of a team that has cap problems because of how much is going to their best players and Mackinnon is quoted about talking about that situation in general. It's not clear he was even asked about the Leafs and Mackinnon is never quoted as saying anything specifically about the Leafs or any of their players. Here's the article for reference:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanhorrobin/2019/12/05/nathan-mackinnon-contract-underpaid-team-friendly-nhl-colorado-avalanche-shifting-rfa-market/?sh=15338d705c03

On the first point that he took less so that they could build a winning team isn't entirely accurate.  He took what he was offered, which was less because at the time of him signing that contract, he hadn't lived up to his potential.  This idea that he took less because he was trying to build a winner isn't actually true.  He took what would have been considered fair market value for his level of play at the time.

This is a very fair point of view to take on Mackinnon's first post-ELC deal. It's so fair, in fact, that Nathan Mackinnon agrees with it. Again, from the above article:

"I was just excited to get paid that much money at such a young age," MacKinnon said Wednesday from his visitor's room stall in Toronto. "Obviously it's pretty (team) friendly now, but I was worth that at the time ... I have no regrets."

That said, if I may be so bold as to disagree slightly with you and Mr. Mackinnon, I think the point the author is getting at is he didn't play hardball or try to negotiate a deal that paid for a lot of future growth which some guys do seem to be able to do. Mackinnon, on his ELC, averaged .70 ppg and got an extension at 8.63% of the cap at the time. Tim Stutzle, for comparison's sake of a highly drafted young player, has put up .66 ppg on his ELC and signed an extension for 10.12% of the cap. And Stutzle isn't all that isolated. Some first overall picks who signed RFA extensions for a higher % of the cap than Mackinnon got despite similarly not setting the world on fire on their ELC's include Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Aaron Ekblad, Nico Hischier and Jack Hughes.

So it's very possible that if Mackinnon had really gone to the Mattresses he could have gotten a deal worth more. A ton more? Maybe not, but the article also goes into how he didn't want to go the bridge route which is a common strategy for high draft picks who maybe haven't hit their full stride.

Comparing what happened to him during his contract negotiations to Matthews and Marner contract negotiations isn't fair.  Matthews and Marner were living up to the hype, whereas he had not yet, and it was a gamble because he may not of.  Nobody levelled those comments at McDavid, why are Matthews and Marner held up as these players that don't care about winning because they signed fair contracts?  I mean this is a peer calling them out.

I agree. Players should be generally supportive of other players if they engage in tough contract negotiations in order to get a fair price for themselves. You know who else agrees? Nathan Mackinnon:

MacKinnon has noticed the uptick of RFA holdouts. If he had it to do over again, he might join the movement.

"I think you want to get paid what you're worth," he said. "I'd probably do the same thing. If a team isn't paying you what you think you're worth, holding out is something (players) are entitled to... I think it's going to continue that way."

So now lets move on to Tavares.  It's possible that MacKinnon would have gotten more on the open market. I feel that the UFA contracts the last couple of years have been a little muted due to the financial situation, so it is in the realm of possibility that the deal he got from the Avalanche is pretty close to what he would have got on the open market.  It's hard to know, but he is making the most in the NHL now, more than McDavid, so I don't know how much further other teams would have been willing to go. I agree that it is possible he could have received a max deal from someone, but we don't really know what would have happened.

A max deal, as it stands now, would be more than 16 million per. I think that's pretty unlikely. But somewhere between 13-14? That strikes me as pretty reasonable considering the nature of the free agent market. Is taking between 2 million and 7.5 million less a huge sacrifice on a 100 million dollar deal? Not for me to judge but I think considering what Tavares, who I think we can all agree was a considerably less attractive UFA than Mackinnon would have been, was offered it's pretty fair to say that with a cap projected to go up by a fair bit over the length of Mackinnon's deal someone would have taken a big run at him.

Regardless of what MacKinnon would have gotten on the open market though, we know that Tavares took less to play for the Leafs.  He did exactly what MacKinnon says he did.  So levelling that comment at Tavares seems hypocritical now.  If it's not about the actual dollars, and more about leaving money on the table, then Tavares did that to play for the Leafs, so that comment doesn't apply to Tavares.

Again, unless you have access to another source besides the link you quoted or the Forbes article, Mackinnon doesn't appear to have said anything about John Tavares.