I have to admit, it was a funny set of circumstances that led me to being a Leafs fan and a Jets fan. Not funny ha-ha, exactly but....

Ok, ok, war crime cancelled I didn't take that into consideration. Although that 2016 team was way too fun and successful for the league to think it's a good idea to try again so I'd be surprised if it was there.

I know that this firmly establishes me in the minority but while I thought the U23 team was fun, I think it contributed to that tournament feeling kind of disposable and meaningless. Sure, Canada still won without McDavid but I want some best on best hockey regardless of age. I'd be more into a Canada/USA B-Team serving as Team North America if they do that again.

I've got an Xbox and Game Pass so I guess I'll be playing it on the 6th or whatever. I'm looking forward to it but realistically even the really good Bethesda games need a little postlaunch seasoning from patches and mods until it's where it should be. Still, seems like a good time.

The part that I'm stuck on is the AAV -- well, less that than the share of the cap Matthews will consume. If the cap's $90m when the deal kicks in, it'll be 14.7% share of the team's cap. Looking at CapFriendly's historical archive (back to 15-16 season), the highest share of the cap any one player consumed was 13.3% (Malkin in 15-16).

So the previous high was a guy who won a cup in the same year?

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/38246856/rangers-sign-alexis-lafreniere-2-year-465m-contract

Man, I did not think that this would be the shape of his second contract.

Nik, you are sitting at 29,999 posts.  Make sure the next one is worthy of being set in stone.

Ok.

Hey, remember when people said he'd leave as a free agent for Arizona?

Now that that's officially behind us we can all admit...that was the dumbest thing anyone could have thought, right? Like, no sought after UFA in hockey right now is signing in Arizona unless there's a gun to their head.

If Matthews hangs around after this four years, he'll have a bundle of franchise records.

However, in four years time, depending on their building & ownership, Az might be an attractive destination as an up and coming team. They've stock piled some youth on their roster and a lot of youngsters in their system (RESERVE LIST: 79/90). They have 13 extra picks over the next 3 years.

Also, I hear Houston has a great food scene.

[IF]

That's really the only saving grace here, is that if Matthews proves to be injury prone in his later years the Leafs can easily get out of it.

You're also not contractually tied into paying him top of the league money for his 31-34 seasons.

And you get him cheaper now too. An 8-year deal would be 15 mill a year.

Well we don't know what it might have been. It might have been 16 or 16.5. And that's what I really don't get about the longing for 8 years. The whole argument seems to be that IF Matthews is really good over the next five years and IF the salary cap goes up by an appreciable amount and IF the Leafs are in a position where they'd want to sign Matthews through his 30's and IF Matthews by that age is still of the "Get the most I can" mentality when even this contract kind of proves that's already not how he thinks then you MIGHT be in a situation where from the years 2028-29 to 2031-32 you'd probably be paying him more than you otherwise would if he'd signed the 8 year deal now.

But pretty clearly Matthews and his team would factor that into any 8 year deal they'd sign so he'd probably end up making that money in those later years anyway. The only difference is he'd also be making that money in the first four years of his extension.

That's really the only saving grace here, is that if Matthews proves to be injury prone in his later years the Leafs can easily get out of it.

You're also not contractually tied into paying him top of the league money for his 31-34 seasons.

If you're an elite NHL player, "shorter term" may be the route to max dollars over the span of your career.

If you're willing to forego the security that longer term deals provide, as well as the vanity of a big total number ($100m+), you can put your team over the barrel a few times over your career given you'll be theoretically very employable at each juncture.

Not to mention as we've seen in the NBA, shorter deals gives a player more control just in general. Both in terms of being able to find better situations but also in terms of having more clout within an organization if leaving is always sort of on the horizon.

We'll have had 34 from 18 through 29.  I am perfectly content to cross whatever bridge comes after that.  Put me down as a very happy camper on this one.

It's a minor point but it's actually 18-30. And, in Matthews' particular case, it's really more like 19-31. The years the Leafs won't have Matthews under contract vs. an 8 year deal are solidly in his 30's.

Unless they sign him to a long deal next time to make him truly a Leaf for life. That will be a much more interesting negotiation (assuming he wants to stay).

I also think though that in 5 years time the Leafs will be in one of two places. Either they'll be disappointed with the Matthews tenure and signing him again will be kind of moot as some sort of tear-down/rebuild will be necessary or they'll be thrilled with his time here in which case overpaying him for his 30's would be something we could probably live with just on sentiment.

Having him for the next 5 years isn't just getting him for his peak, it's also the make or break time for the Matthews era. The sort of downside some people see five years out, where the Leafs are really eager to sign him through his 30's but he has them over a barrel and demands another huge payday...the only way that comes to fruition is with a lot of success over the next five years. And at that point, worrying about his cap hit five years out is like worrying about the property taxes on the mansion you buy after you win the lottery.

The thing I keep coming back to is it seems like the criticism of this deal all stems from some sort of idea that the Leafs, as the team Matthews is signed with at the moment, have some sort of super secret negotiating edge just by virtue of him being here already. And while, sure, the Leafs do have an edge in terms of being able to offer him an 8th year(which he didn't want) and can exclusively try to sell him on not moving, already liking his teammates/the city and so on, the reality is this is a UFA deal. And when highly touted UFA's negotiate deals they get to wave teams away like bored medieval kings the moment they're displeased. Remember Tavares not even taking the Habs' phone calls?

If Matthews wasn't a Leaf and hit the UFA market, would anyone here have a problem if the Leafs signed him to this deal? Would you really criticize the GM for not getting an extra 4 years?

We'll have had 34 from 18 through 29.  I am perfectly content to cross whatever bridge comes after that.  Put me down as a very happy camper on this one.

It's a minor point but it's actually 18-30. And, in Matthews' particular case, it's really more like 19-31. The years the Leafs won't have Matthews under contract vs. an 8 year deal are solidly in his 30's.

Easy.  Give him more money to secure him for more years.  As much as I think this money should be tops to give him on an 8-year deal, if they needed to give him upwards of a million more to get it done, I'd do it.

Ok but, again, what if he says no to that? And, considering the reports are that the Leafs wanted the longer term and he didn't, it seems pretty likely that just an extra million per probably wouldn't have swayed him for 4 extra years.

If the Leafs did want the eight years they would have presented the option to Matthews' camp and his agent either A) would have told them a number that's so high that the Leafs(and by what you wrote probably you also) wouldn't have agreed or B) just refused and said he was only interested in a 4 year deal.

Matthews really held all the cards here.

If he held out to become a UFA, I'm pretty sure he would have got more from the winning bid.

This is what I keep coming back to. A guy in Matthews' position basically gets to call his own shot. If he decided he wanted 4 years and the Leafs wanted more, what's the negotiating tactic there?

"Sign for 8 years"

"Nah"

"Ok, then we won't give you the money you want"

"Ok, I'll get it somewhere else"

Matthews would know the Leafs would never call the bluff of actually letting him walk so he could basically write his own contract. Even if you're of the opinion that an 8 year deal is better than a 4 year deal for the Leafs, and I still can't wrap my head around that one, there's no arm to twist here. Matthews would have been the most sought after UFA in the history of the NHL.