One question then. Why? Why would they all make more? All comparables put them around there.

Gardiner is also the zone exit guy of the pair, meaning they have and make plays with the pucks 10x more, giving him WAY more opportunity to lose the puck. I tend to disagree with the view of the 2 players with you but I understand the logic you have behind it. Cheers

Comparables are irrelevant, the market is changing as the cup rises. Matthews will get around McDavid money, he's just that good. Marner I think will take less to get a long term deal but he's better than Draisaitl and that guy makes 8.5 million. Get mad at Chiarelli, this is his fault but its not really a problem. These are the guys who will be the carrying the load as this team contends for a cup. They should get the money. Why give Johnsson 1.5 million? The guy is a depth player, I like him but if he wants more than a million, I'd trade him.

What makes the team better? Losing Nylander and keeping Johnsson and Kapanen at several million more than they are worth? Or keep Nylander, Marner and Matthews and make the depth guys who ride on their coattails take a haircut? If you are no worried that TO won't ever have good depth, why do they have a scouting department? Why bother drafting? They are great at developing players and have a tonne of assets currently.

Pay the stars and watch them elevate lesser known guys for the next decade.

"Comparables are irrelevant." Wow okay. So your opinion on contracts is irrelevant then. Good to know.

I'm just saying that so many people are looking at stuff from 3-5 years ago as comparables when the market is changing. Those comparables aren't making a difference anymore. It makes far more sense to lock up guys through their 20's than it does to wait until their late 20's before breaking the bank. Teams should saying to hell with comparables and look at it from a cost value perspective. Matthews is Toronto's best player, so he should get paid like he's their best. If he wants 14 mill a season, that's excessive but if he comes to the table and says I want 12 million, I'd say how about 11, if he said 12, I'd counter with 11.5. If he accepts that great, if not give him his 12 million and move on.

Why? Because he is going to be worth every penny of that deal. He'll earn it every day. Pay people for what they will do over the course of the contract. Looking back and comparing to other guys in different situations and saying Larkin got this so, Nylander should get that is pointless. What will Larkin do over the course of his contract? What will Nylander do over his contract?

Pastrnak is a player who signed a contract based off what other guys in his situation was getting, and his contract is an utter steal.

To me it makes far more sense to base contract discussions over what a player will contribute over the course of the contract. If player A has shown enough to think they will be a point a game player, pay them accordingly. Teams would be wise to spend their big money on younger players and less on older players. How many top players are over the age of 34 right now? I can't think of many, most of the top players are in their mid 20's, so why fight to pay those guys less? Why not pay them what they are earning and make the other guys take the pay cuts?

This is an ACGM with modern, recent comparables.
https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/884206
Now how different are they exactly? How are these contracts irrelevant?
Your idea works if there is no cap, but there is, so we need to be frugal.

Of course you need to be frugal but I think you are misplacing where you should target your savings. So many people think like this, "I'll give you this much because you haven't earned more yet." then after they earn it which everyone knew they would, people say, "here is your long term mega deal that will pay you for all you accomplished over x amount of years" That is flawed.

If you look at player trends over the past decade, players peak statistically at around 24, that is when they physically are at their best. They'll stay close to that for the rest of their 20's before they eventually start declining. This is a very strong trend that gets stronger each year as more young players continue to develop into stars.

So armed with this information, why are people trying to find savings from those players that are performing at the highest level? Why are guys who are 28 getting 8 year deals that pay them 11 million a year? (Doughty) We know without a shadow of a doubt that these players won't be good enough to earn the money they will make for back half of the contract. And yet still GM's and fans continue to do this and want their teams to do it.

Matthews, Nylander and Marner (along with Tavares) will be the players to carry this team offensively for the next 8 years. They will all be playing at their highest level over their next contract or 2 contracts if they get bridge deals. How does it make sense to punish these guys by offering them less than they will be worth over the course of their respective contracts only to give that to guys "who have earned their money", aging vets who are declining or depth guys that fans have fallen in love with but are extremely easy to replace?

If you can explain to me why it makes sense to sqeeze Nylander for every drop we can get out of him so we can sign Johnsson for double what he should be worth?

6.5 is not squeezing Nylander. That is fair market price. 6 and under would be squeezing him. I agree that giving older guys that kind of money and term is stupid, and I am proposing we give them what they are worth now, and when their contract is up, you just give them small raises. Ideally, the big 3's contracts look like this (not that they will):

Nylander: 8@6.75 (takes him to 30), 4@7.5(takes him to 34), 3@4 (takes him to 37, this is only if he continues to play well)
Marner: 8@7.5 (takes him to 30), 4@8.5 (takes him to 34), 3@4.5 (takes him to 37, this is only if he continues to play well)
Matthews: 8@11 (takes him to 30), 4@12.5 (takes to 34), 4@6(takes to 38, this is only if he continues to play well)

This structures their careers to pay them fairly for their youth, add aav to kill term in their late prime, then bring it down, both term and aav in their twilight.

Its a fair market price if you look at what other 60 point players making, but thats now how you should look at a player like Nylander. What is the reasonable expectation we can have for him? Is he going to be a 60 point guy for the next 8 years? If so than I'd say 6.5 is too much. Is he going to regularly push for 70 points? Then 6.5 is a good deal. Personally, I think he'll be a guy who scores 70+ always and will pass 80 a few times, he really is that good and on most teams would have 1st PP time. So with that in mind, if you paid him 7-7.5 you are getting an absolute steal.

In all of your scenarios your biggest contract (Cap hit avg) is when they are 30-34. Their best hockey has been played at that point and they won't be worth those numbers. Here is what I would do if it was at all possible.

Matthews 8x12 (he's not McDavid but he's better then anyone else who is close to the same age as Matthews.) That takes him to 30 and then I'd give him two options, 8 years at 6.5 million or a 2 year deal at 10 million. (maybe give other options too but the point is the shorter the term the higher the cap hit but it will drop dramatically the longer the term.)
Marner 8x8 (I'd prefer him and Nylander getting matching 7.5 million dollar deals but what can you do.) Then it would be the same situation as Matthews, higher cap hit for the shorter term.
Nylander 7x8 and the same as the other guys.

I have no problems giving these guys money, I'd rather bend for them than the depth guys.

Kapanen has a big year and wants 4 million? See ya.