In a normal cap world there are 2 options for RFAs
Higher AAV long term deal
Lower AAV short term deal, generally followed by much higher AAV next deal
For example:
Player A is offered 10 mill x 4
or 11.5 mill x 8
In the 10 mill x 4 year deal, with the cap going up, the next deal ends up being something like 14 mill x4. So in total they pay 96 mill over 8 years.
Or in the long term deal scenario it's 92 mill total. In general the long term deal ends up being cheaper overall.
BUT, since the cap stagnated, the 2nd deal only ends up being 11x4. Now they only have to pay 84 mill total. So because the cap didn't go up, it went from being a terrible cost saving idea to bridge, into 1 that actually saves you money.
For Matthews specifically, the alternative was likely something like 12.5x8 (mcdavid deal)
100 mill over 8 years.
Due to the cap not rising, It will be 97.8 mill over those 8 years
If the cap did rise however, matthews new deal would have been at 15.5 mill AAV or so, or something like 104.5 mill total over the 8 years.
I fully understand everything you’re saying, but while the total cost of the 8 years would be lower, the cap savings would not be lower, because the cap isn’t the same in both of these scenarios. Toronto doesn’t care about the total cost of the deal, because they have a ton of money. They only care about the cap space.
The cap for the first year of this deal in 19-20 was 81.5 million. From 13-14 (the year after the lockout deflated to the cap) to 19–20, the cap raised from 64.3M over those 7 years. That’s a 17.2M raise or 26.7% raise over those 7 years, or 3.81% per year. Under a 81.5M cap that would mean an increase of 3.1M a year, which means over 8 years it would go from 81.5 to 84.6, then 87.7, 90.8, 93.9, 97, 100.1, 103.2.
This would put the cap going into next year at 97M rather than the estimated 87.7. If Matthews was making 15 going into next year at a 97M cap, he’d be at 15.5% of the cap. As it stands, at 13.25, he’s going to be 15.1%. The difference is marginal. And assuming the cap continues to rise 3.1 in both scenarios, he’d continue to be similar
Meanwhile, for the first 5 years, his percentage of the cap stagnated. Here’s each year over 8 years based on what percentage of the cap he made with the flat cap, followed by next years projection then a continued 3.1M jump, or had the cap continued to rise based on the 3.1M per year, and the second contract being 15 vs 13.25
19-20: 14.2 Flat, 14.2 Raised
20-21: 14.2 Flat, 13.7 Raised
21-22: 14.2 Flat, 13.2 Raised
22-23: 14.1 Flat, 12.8 Raised
23-24: 13.9 Flat, 12.4 Raised
24-25: 15.1 Flat, 15.5 Raised
25-26: 14.6 Flat, 15 Raised
26-27: 14.1 Flat, 14.5 Raised
Under the flat cap he’d average 14.3% of the cap over 8 years. Under a rising cap, he’d average 13.9% of the cap over the 8 years. And this likely is underrating the gap because I’m using a flat increase of 3.1M despite the jumps in the cal each year likely being larger the higher it goes. There’s no reason to believe Toronto benefited from the flat cap with Matthews’ deal unless you think the cap is going to rise by a greater margin in the next couple years than it would have raised naturally without the flat cap.