mouser
Business of Hockey
It's actually less..
2.5 x 2 = 5
2.1 x 3 = 6.3
Obviously there's the argument about the difference in term, but I think these two contracts are more similar than the previous 1.9 x 2 offer.
Typically with young players the longer the contract the higher the AAV. After all, the expectation is that the player is going to improve and progress in coming seasons. It's with older players you often see teams tacking on extra years to lower the AAV.
I think 2x$1.9m and 3x$2.1m would reflect RFA players with similar valuations--add on the 3rd year, increase the AAV a bit.