James Tanner
The Mitch Marner contract is an overpayment based on Marner’s current value and what comparable players make.
It is also an overpayment based on the percentage of the cap it takes up compared to other players who signed long term deals when their ELCs expired, and who are similar or better quality players than Marner.
However, the economics of the NHL have changed since Patrick Kane and other signed their second deals. The Leafs are paying Marner more than he is worth today in exchange for getting what the prime of his NHL career.
The salary cap will rise – TV, gambling, and expansion are on the horizon. If it wasn’t projected to go up significantly, I highly doubt the players and league would have agreed to avoid a work stoppage, like they did last week.
Not only will the cap rise, but salaries will too. and when that happens, the Toronto Maple Leafs will probably be getting Marner at a team friendly rate.
Even if that isn’t the case, it’s perfectly fine to overpay your elite players. The Leafs have locked up all their best players to long term deals, and that is a fantastic thing.
The Leafs realize that you only need to pay elite players, and young players with elite upside (Johnson , Kapanen, Kerfoot). The rest of your roster can be filled out with league minimum vets and rookies.
Since the difference between above average but non-elite players and players like Nick Shore or Jason Spezza is much smaller than the differences in their salaries, the Leafs shouldn’t see any downside at all to spending most of their money on a small core of players.
Eventually, you’ll see teams copy this model because it’s obvious that it’s going to be very successful. The Leafs signed Marner and that’s all that matters. It might be for too much, but not enough to care.