I agree 10000% with thought #1. Many of these GM's are either ex players that played back when they didn't make nearly as much as they do today or they are hockey minds from a soon to be forgotten time where "I don't care if you score 100 points, you have to earn it kiddo. Thats just the way its always been and always will and I'll die before I let some punk think he's worth more Crosby!"......

Regarding #2, that's tricky because other than Chayka and maybe to an extent Dubas, we don't have a ton of data to base a formulated opinion on. Chayka's contracts for example may or may not be constituted as bad contracts in a certain way but we also don't know if he just happens to be the 1/10 that would do it that way. We won't know until the league in general adopts the ideology.

Chayka overpaid Keller, Schmaltz, Chychrun and Dvorak but I think most of us feel that even though those players are not producing enough for them to be worth what they are making now, they certainly will be worth it in a couple years. Now while all these guys are talented players, they've all either had at least 1 difficult year, injured, low producing year etc that gives risk to wanting to sign them long term. Whats the excuse against Marner? He's been improving every year and hasn't had a single year in which to give one doubt.

Yeah but Im not talking about changing the rules, even though that would be actual best thing for the players. I'm just suggesting that this idea of paying UFA's based on a long list of accomplishments is worse than paying an RFA based on future potential. One has almost no chance of meeting those expectations the other has the statistical data to prove he should be able based on the age and progression of players abilities.

Just as an aside, the Point contract is the anti-Marner contract. If anyone uses Points contract as basis for theirs its simply using the bottom of the spectrum with Marner being the higher of the spectrum. Both are the extremes and should not be taken as perfect. IMO