Player Discussion Charlie McAvoy V signs 3 year $4.9m extension

Status
Not open for further replies.

BMC

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2003
69,507
59,113
The Quiet Corner
skyisfalling.gif

It's HF. It's who we are and what we do.
 

Gordon Lightfoot

Hey Dotcom. Nice to meet you.
Sponsor
Feb 3, 2009
18,624
4,943
My concern is the McAvoy camp is looking for AAV that would make him the highest paid player on the team and I just don't see the exec team being able to digest that. Granted, the top paid players have all taken hometown discounts, but I just don't see him signing anytime soon at this point unless it's a bridge deal.

The top players also signed a few years ago. Bergeron/Marchand/Pastrnak/Krejci/Rask contracts should be irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estlin

missingchicklet

Registered User
Jan 24, 2010
36,589
34,463
Word on the street is that Provorov wants $10 million per.
https://www.tsn.ca/report-columbus-...nski-is-looking-for-three-year-deal-1.1353943

This is getting out of hand my friends.
$8 mil per is still too much for him. I get the concept of starting high, but asking $10 mil per coming off a 26 pt season, inconsistency, and not being incredibly multidimensional is just stupid and not even worthy of serious consideration. Honestly, it's hard for me to believe that report in the first place, but then again some of these RFAs are getting uppity.

As for McAvoy, DS will get a deal done by the start of the season. This kind of thing has proven to be his forte so far.
 

vjcsmoke

Registered User
Jun 29, 2011
1,194
111
I don't get why we are trying to sign an 8 year deal. That costs more money because you are buying out free agent years.

I think they should just go with a 6 year deal as that is the cheapest.

Ux11FJV.jpg


The comps suggest that McAvoy should be signed to around a 6 year/$5.5m average. And then bump up his pay when he hits free agency or extend him a year before the contract expires.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bruinswillwin77

wintersej

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2011
21,969
16,663
North Andover, MA
I don't get why we are trying to sign an 8 year deal. That costs more money because you are buying out free agent years.

I think they should just go with a 6 year deal as that is the cheapest.

Ux11FJV.jpg


The comps suggest that McAvoy should be signed to around a 6 year/$5.5m average. And then bump up his pay when he hits free agency or extend him a year before the contract expires.

You can be sure the McAvoy camp is going to reject Slavin as a comparable (not enough two way ability) and Skjei (that's just offensive).

You have to look at the year the deals were signed, too.

When Seth Jones signed the cap was only 73 million. Jones 5.4 is 6 in todays dollars. Jones career high in points was 31 when he signed the deal and he had half a season under his belt at being more than a bottom pair defenseman. Obviously, he had pedigree and being blocked on Nashville was a real thing.

While McAvoy and Jones have had similar offensive production in their early years, Jones needed 20 more games a season to do it. I'm not sure how to value the fact that Jones was able to play full seasons vs the fact that McAvoy was a bigger contributor both in position on the team and in offensive production, but 6x6 is the floor for that length of deal.

Lindholm another comparable that would put a deal today at 6x6ish. Like the Bruins, the Ducks were a defensive powerhouse with a very good top 4 with evenly spaced minutes. He also put up around the same production as McAvoy but in 20 extra games. So same kinda production vs health awkwardness there to argue over.

On a 6 year deal, 6x6 is the floor and McAvoy is going to argue that his two injuries were flukes and shouldn't be held against him, and he is in his rights to ask for a contract a level ABOVE Jones and Lindholm, while the Bruins will arguing otherwise.

For an 8 year deal, Ekblad's 7.5 is closer to 8 in todays dollars. Ekblad had better offensive output than the previous two guys, but that can really be explained away by fact he was on a bad team that gave him #1 PP time that McAvoy, Jones and Lindholm did not get. McAvoy had been more productive than Ekblad and proven it on a bigger stage.

So McAvoy's argument is that he is a level above all these guys and deserves an extra 1-2 million on a similar length deal. And the Bruins are going to counter that his injuries mitigate that.

I do wonder if they come out of this with a two year bridge where McAvoy proves his health. McAvoy could come out of those two years asking for the highest AAV for a d-man in the game, but you would be sure the injuries were not flukes.

In reality, I am more sympathetic to the McAvoy position in this scenario and would hope the Bruins would do what it takes to make the deal a long term one rather than have to give McAvoy a Subban type deal (11+ AAV in todays dollars) in two years.
 

JOKER 192

Blow it up
Sponsor
Jun 14, 2010
19,695
18,602
Montreal,Canada
So McAvoy's argument is that he is a level above all these guys and deserves an extra 1-2 million on a similar length deal. And the Bruins are going to counter that his injuries mitigate that.

Good post, though I don't see how McAvoy can argue he's a level above either of player. McAvoy has played 1st line minutes while the others played 2nd and 3rd line minutes , not because they weren't on par but simply, as you stated, because of defensive depth. Both players are better defensively and are more imposing players. They also played on teams with less offence production which would also be part of the reason for less production. I see 6 x 6 closer to the ceiling rather than the floor.
 

wintersej

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2011
21,969
16,663
North Andover, MA
Good post, though I don't see how McAvoy can argue he's a level above either of player. McAvoy has played 1st line minutes while the others played 2nd and 3rd line minutes , not because they weren't on par but simply, as you stated, because of defensive depth. Both players are better defensively and are more imposing players. They also played on teams with less offence production which would also be part of the reason for less production. I see 6 x 6 closer to the ceiling rather than the floor.

I'm don't think the bolded is true. Jones, even then, was certainly more physically imposing, but hard to compare a guy who played against the bottom 6 defensively vs a guy in McAvoy who plays against the best talent. TODAY obviously Jones is better, but when he signed his deal? Lindholm really stalled in his development. I would take McAvoy over Lindholm today over 200 feet.
 

bearcountry17

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
3,242
1,870
South Shore, MA
Good post, though I don't see how McAvoy can argue he's a level above either of player. McAvoy has played 1st line minutes while the others played 2nd and 3rd line minutes , not because they weren't on par but simply, as you stated, because of defensive depth. Both players are better defensively and are more imposing players. They also played on teams with less offence production which would also be part of the reason for less production. I see 6 x 6 closer to the ceiling rather than the floor.

Because he clearly is better today than either of those guys when they signed their contracts.
 

JOKER 192

Blow it up
Sponsor
Jun 14, 2010
19,695
18,602
Montreal,Canada
I'm don't think the bolded is true. Jones, even then, was certainly more physically imposing, but hard to compare a guy who played against the bottom 6 defensively vs a guy in McAvoy who plays against the best talent. TODAY obviously Jones is better, but when he signed his deal? Lindholm really stalled in his development. I would take McAvoy over Lindholm today over 200 feet.

I would argue Jones was, Lindholm has his ups and downs, kind of like McAvoy.

When you sign a deal there is some projection that goes into the considerations. Jones was obviously going to become a powerhouse, at least to me and probably most. I don't see McAvoy reaching that level, not to discount Charlie's talents but Jones with his size and skill is a rare bird.

Because both Jones and Lindholm were playing down in the line-up it was harder to evaluate their potential so projection had to play a big role . With Charlie, I think we have a good idea. The only real question with him is health. One of the things that kept Charlie out was a heart issue. As the son of parents who both died of heart disease,I can assure you, issues with the heart are not an easy fix. As everybody knows , the heart is a very important organ in your body, especially for athletes. That is not something that should be overlooked. I would be hesitant to sign a long term deal with Charlie for health concerns. 6 x 6 is the longest and highest I would go and even then I still have reservations.
 

bearcountry17

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
3,242
1,870
South Shore, MA
I disagree but let's set that aside. Do you see him being better than Jones going forward? Some projection should be considered.

Well you would be wrong because neither of those guys were #1 dman on one of the top teams in the league before their ELC ran up(only 2 seasons btw).

To answer your question, yes. I think Mcavoy has the potential to be the best defensemen in the league. There are very few Dmen currently playing who you can go back and say were as good as Mcavoy was at 19-21.

He was a walk on top pairing, top competition guy and IMO the biggest difference between those non- playoff Bruins rosters and the roster we’ve ran the last 2 years.

His injury history is the only concern but he has rebounded well from them.

I get people don’t want to put the horse before the cart but it’s looking pretty clear that Mcavoy has Norris potential. Guys who are this good so soon, especially dmen, often go on to become superstars.

The Bruins can only go wrong IMO by setting him up as a UFA on his next contract. A bridge deal will give us the flexibility we need to compete now. A long term deal is something you can work around ,and absolutely should for your #1 D, and will age well for 4-5 years down the line.
 

JOKER 192

Blow it up
Sponsor
Jun 14, 2010
19,695
18,602
Montreal,Canada
Well you would be wrong because neither of those guys were #1 dman on one of the top teams in the league before their ELC ran up(only 2 seasons btw).

Lol, well you don't get to decide who's wrong and who's right, especially not based on the arguments you make. The fact that neither of those guys were #1 Dmen had more to do with the depth their team had on D than their skill. They would have been #1's on the Bruins as they are currently constructed. So that doesn't mean anything. Victor Mete is playing 1st line D on the Habs. Is he a 1st liner? Hell no, he'd be a 7 on the Bruins. What line you play on doesn't necessarily mean you qualify for that position. McAvoy wouldn't be a 1st pairing D man on many teams.

You think McAvoy is going to be the #D in the league? I sure hope so but there is a lot he needs to work on before he can make that claim. A Norris, while possible, will be a long time coming I would think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

bearcountry17

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
3,242
1,870
South Shore, MA
Lol, well you don't get to decide who's wrong and who's right, especially not based on the arguments you make. The fact that neither of those guys were #1 Dmen had more to do with the depth their team had on D than their skill. They would have been #1's on the Bruins as they are currently constructed. So that doesn't mean anything. Victor Mete is playing 1st line D on the Habs. Is he a 1st liner? Hell no, he'd be a 7 on the Bruins. What line you play on doesn't necessarily mean you qualify for that position. McAvoy wouldn't be a 1st pairing D man on many teams.

You think McAvoy is going to be the #D in the league? I sure hope so but there is a lot he needs to work on before he can make that claim. A Norris, while possible, will be a long time coming I would think.

Victor Mete was 7th in TOI for defenders last season for the 13th best GA canadiens. A non playoff team.

Seth Jones was 3rd in TOI from 2013-2015 playing under 20 minutes on the Preds, the 15th best GA team, 14th most points over that time.

Mcavoy is #1 over the last 2 years on the 3rd best GA team, and second best team in points over that time.

Seth Jones is one of the best Dmen in the league today but he was not that player at 19-21. Most dmen aren’t. Could he have been the number 1 on a Stanley cup contending team at that age? Probably not but we’ll never know. What we, Mcavoy, the Bruins, and Mcavoy’s agent do know is Mcavoy is.

I’d love to know what teams you think Mcavoy wouldn’t be on the top pairing if u have the time.
 

JOKER 192

Blow it up
Sponsor
Jun 14, 2010
19,695
18,602
Montreal,Canada
Victor Mete was 7th in TOI for defenders last season for the 13th best GA canadiens. A non playoff team.

Seth Jones was 3rd in TOI from 2013-2015 playing under 20 minutes on the Preds, the 15th best GA team, 14th most points over that time.

Mcavoy is #1 over the last 2 years on the 3rd best GA team, and second best team in points over that time.

Seth Jones is one of the best Dmen in the league today but he was not that player at 19-21. Most dmen aren’t. Could he have been the number 1 on a Stanley cup contending team at that age? Probably not but we’ll never know. What we, Mcavoy, the Bruins, and Mcavoy’s agent do know is Mcavoy is.

I’d love to know what teams you think Mcavoy wouldn’t be on the top pairing if u have the time.

Regardless of TOI Mete played 1st line minutes, that is a fact.

Again, how many times do I need to make the point? These guys were held back by defense depth on their teams . IT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. McAvoy got the chance for lack of a better option. That's how it works.

As per teams he wouldn't be top pairing,

Sharks
Blues
for sure

He, as a RD would play behind (and never would have had the chance he had in Boston) the following players ,

Ekman-Larsson
Pietrangelo
Parayko
Ekblad
Weber
Doughty
Karlsson
Burns
Jones
LeTang
Subban
Carlson
 
Last edited:

b in vancouver

Registered User
Jul 28, 2005
7,840
5,693
hes nowhere near worth 8mil a year.
should get 5.5 no more than 6.5 the most.

That's exactly where I have him pencilled in.
The kid has only had a 63 and 54 game regular season on his resume, and another 40 playoff games and for about half of those he really wasn't that great.
There's no offer-sheet threat. The Bruins are an excellent team with marketable players with or without him so his agent can't lord that over them like they could with a crap team. He just doesn't have the negotiating leverage most of the other RFAs have.
I'm as excited about this kid going forward as anyone but he just ain't all that and a bag of chips yet.

I started a thread on the main board (I so rarely ever do) wondering if burning an ELC year is good practice. We'll find out soon with McAvoy.
 

b in vancouver

Registered User
Jul 28, 2005
7,840
5,693
If it eats even a single UFA year, Charlie under 8 is a steal.

I disagree. First is that I'm not as concerned about buying up UFA years and second is that he just hasn't proven himself to be in that price range. We hope he becomes and $8M d-man, he probably will, but if it was a stead-fast $8Mx7 year contract demand - I'd probably be calling other teams.
 

bearcountry17

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
3,242
1,870
South Shore, MA
Regardless of TOI Mete played 1st line minutes, that is a fact.

Again, how many times do I need to make the point? These guys were held back by defense depth on their teams . IT DOESN'T MEAN ****. McAvoy got the chance for lack of a better option. That's how it works.

As per teams he wouldn't be top pairing,

Sharks
Blues
for sure

He, as a RD would play behind (and never would have had the chance he had in Boston) the following players ,

Ekman-Larsson
Pietrangelo
Parayko
Ekblad
Weber
Doughty
Karlsson
Burns
Jones
LeTang
Subban
Carlson

Regarding the bold, if Jones was good enough to play 22 minutes against top competition during his Nashville years there would never be a 6-7 minute discrepancy between him and the top two of Webber and Josi, I don’t care how good they are. No NHL coach would burden their top pair so much with a guy who could run a top pair on contender as a #3. A guy that good could easily Cary a second pairing for 20+ minutes.

Both of Mcavoy and Jones were not the main special teams options for their teams but one was able to handle a huge amount of time at ES and get better results at it.

As for the rest. OEL is a LHD and Mcavoy is currently as good or better than Paryako, Ekblad, or Subban.

So what your saying is by the age of 21 he could have been a top pairing guy on 22 of 31 of the teams in the league.
He could have been top pairing on the Tampa Bay Lighting or the Edmonton Oilers. Interesting argument.
 

Jim

Registered User
Mar 11, 2002
1,359
671
Rochester NY
McAvoy without Chara’s guidance would have not succeeded at the position he played. Three seasons back, Carlo was skating top pair for most of the season. Nobody would have argued that it was the ideal position for his skill set at that time. McAvoy came along and it was his turn to get the protection and tutelage from the old vet.

Last year was a function of our D pairing efficiently. What is the alternative? Pair him with Carlo and let Chara & Krug play the top pair? No...the lack of experience would have shown through. Also, Krug was going to run the PP so he needed second pair minutes. Drop McAvoy to the 3rd pair? That would have been a downright waste. Put him with Krug on the second pair? Hey, why not go Krug/Grizz while we’re at it??? No of course not, they would have been man handled.

So McAvoy plays top pair where he is relatively safe with Chara. That doesn’t, by default, make him a run-away Norris Trophy candidate after two injury-plagued seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOKER 192
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->