TwineTickler
TheUltimateBruin
Three years for both would be perfect. 1 year left of control for Carlo and 2 for McAvoy. Can go long term after those 3 years are up.
3 years 5.75 for Mac, 3 Years 3.5-3.75 for Carlo.
Player Discussion Charlie McAvoy V signs 3 year $4.9m extension
- Thread starter TP
- Start date
- Status
Three years for both would be perfect. 1 year left of control for Carlo and 2 for McAvoy. Can go long term after those 3 years are up.
3 years 5.75 for Mac, 3 Years 3.5-3.75 for Carlo.
Mr. Make-Believe
The happy genius of my household
All this gnashing of teeth over a specific number.
Personally, I'm only concerned if the negotiations are acrimonious and he's low-balled. Anything else? I'm just gonna be happy he's signed.
Personally, I'm only concerned if the negotiations are acrimonious and he's low-balled. Anything else? I'm just gonna be happy he's signed.
maxbme
Registered User
- Jan 13, 2016
- 2,624
- 2,866
McAvoy signing a Werenski type deal would be fine, but I'd rather see them move a body and sign him long term at more money. He is worth it without a doubt.
I see Micah McCurdy's charts shared a lot so lets break down the comparison of Werenski, Provorov, and McAvoy last season through them.
Werenski makes a positive impact +6% compared to the team, and you can see the shots generated on his side. I'd be concerned about the defense +11% compared to team, and how many shots get taken on his side, especially in close. Thats pretty alarming for a top pair d.
Provorov was closer to Werenski, +9% offensive impact. Massive impact downlow around the net. Similar negative impact, +8%, but you see most of the generated shots from the other side which would be good for an RHD, except for the fact that since November, Provorov played LHD most of the season paired while he was paired with Sanheim. I'm willing to chalk this season off to playing injured and expect better defensively going forward.
This is where it gets fun for us. McAvoy was a massive boost on both sides of the ice, +12 offensively, beating out Provorov and Werenski, and -6% defensively, a staggering 17% better than Werenski and 12% better than Provorov. You can see the rainbow road in front of the net become covered in red. For a team that played a largely defensive game last season (as reflected in the offensive without chart), this is a very strong reflection of ability to get pucks in strong shooting position. Defensively, Bruins benefited from McAvoy in a massive way. With Charlie the right side is a blue, shotless wasteland, without you can see the red patch near the dot and the one that develops in between the dots.
If the Bruins can get 6 years of a McAvoy calibre player at $17,750,000 total, I'm all for it. But if Provorov and Werenski are his comparables, you want him long term at almost whatever cost.
I see Micah McCurdy's charts shared a lot so lets break down the comparison of Werenski, Provorov, and McAvoy last season through them.
Werenski makes a positive impact +6% compared to the team, and you can see the shots generated on his side. I'd be concerned about the defense +11% compared to team, and how many shots get taken on his side, especially in close. Thats pretty alarming for a top pair d.
Provorov was closer to Werenski, +9% offensive impact. Massive impact downlow around the net. Similar negative impact, +8%, but you see most of the generated shots from the other side which would be good for an RHD, except for the fact that since November, Provorov played LHD most of the season paired while he was paired with Sanheim. I'm willing to chalk this season off to playing injured and expect better defensively going forward.
This is where it gets fun for us. McAvoy was a massive boost on both sides of the ice, +12 offensively, beating out Provorov and Werenski, and -6% defensively, a staggering 17% better than Werenski and 12% better than Provorov. You can see the rainbow road in front of the net become covered in red. For a team that played a largely defensive game last season (as reflected in the offensive without chart), this is a very strong reflection of ability to get pucks in strong shooting position. Defensively, Bruins benefited from McAvoy in a massive way. With Charlie the right side is a blue, shotless wasteland, without you can see the red patch near the dot and the one that develops in between the dots.
If the Bruins can get 6 years of a McAvoy calibre player at $17,750,000 total, I'm all for it. But if Provorov and Werenski are his comparables, you want him long term at almost whatever cost.
Attachments
Spooner st
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2007
- 12,944
- 8,100
Thanks for posting this.
I think your numbers are off, probably a typo.
6 years $17.75M makes no sense.
weaponomega
Registered User
I think a bridge deal is the only way this works for the Bruins and I think its probably better for McAvoy long term. If he can finally stay healthy over the 2-3 year deal I expect him to be a top 10 defenseman. And if that happens he'll get his $$$.
maxbme
Registered User
- Jan 13, 2016
- 2,624
- 2,866
Haha I meant 3 years. Not 100% sure where I got the the $17.75 from either tbh.
Spooner st
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2007
- 12,944
- 8,100
That makes more sense though.
I would love if he inks that deal.
DominicT
Registered User
Negotiations are a tedious thing. Every situation is different and players are looking for different things out of a contract.
ZW gave up lockout protection (although it probably won't be needed, but you never know) and he gave up signing bonuses.
What he did get though was $7 million in the final year of his deal, and that guarantees a qualifying offer of $7 million and puts all the risk on CBJ.
C-Mac could very well be looking for signing bonuses and lockout protection and a lower qualifying offer, putting more risk on himself.
ZW gave up lockout protection (although it probably won't be needed, but you never know) and he gave up signing bonuses.
What he did get though was $7 million in the final year of his deal, and that guarantees a qualifying offer of $7 million and puts all the risk on CBJ.
C-Mac could very well be looking for signing bonuses and lockout protection and a lower qualifying offer, putting more risk on himself.
DKH
The Bergeron of HF
- Feb 27, 2002
- 74,336
- 52,346
Logic says they try and get the RFA deals done in next 48-72 hours
I agree. If the negotiations get contentious that won't bode well for McAvoy playing his entire career here even if he does get what he wants.
DominicT
Registered User
Smitty93
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2012
- 8,216
- 9,380
You have a much better understanding than the rest of us, but that seems a bit high, considering Werenski just got 3 years, $5 million AAV. I would have thought that $5.75 would be the high end for a 4 year deal.
What's your opinion on Werenski vs McAvoy? Is McAvoy considered that much better around the league?
DKH
The Bergeron of HF
- Feb 27, 2002
- 74,336
- 52,346
DominicT
Registered User
Werenski undersold himself IMO. BUT, his next contract would come a year earlier and his next deal starts at $7 million. A fourth year would have seen a more comparable contract. And by the time the 4th year is up, Werenski could earn as close to what McAvoy would earn in what I said above.
DominicT
Registered User
Been saying it for a while now. He's not more then a $3.5 million d-man right now. So I see a 2, maybe 3 year deal.
IMO, if his agent is looking for more, his agent is doing him a disservice. Bruins could go longer to keep the cap hit down in a few years.
But talking to an agent (not Carlo's), 2, 3 years at around $3.5 million per is where he sees him.
DominicT
Registered User
Mi piace leggere il tuo lavoro in quanto sei molto impreciso con le tue conoscenze.
Non c'e bisogno di insulti
I think he was trying to complement but used google translate to make sure his spelling was good. Just a guess.
Yes, I did exactly that. It was meant as a compliment. Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say your info was always very accurate. My apologies for the confusion Dom.
DominicT
Registered User
Thanks.
But it's not really info, Just the opinion of someone not directly involved who's opinion I sought
CharasLazyWrister
Registered User
I like Carlo, but I agree with Dom. Some of the higher numbers people have thrown out seem to be based off of what people see as his potential, rather than what he’s actually proven.
A big part of RFA status is the team gets some more leverage to really make these “fringe top players” prove themselves in a second contract. It’s hard for me to see justifying more than 4 million AAV any term, and even that feels a bit high. That being said, I thought Heinen was a bit high, so maybe it’s just right.
A big part of RFA status is the team gets some more leverage to really make these “fringe top players” prove themselves in a second contract. It’s hard for me to see justifying more than 4 million AAV any term, and even that feels a bit high. That being said, I thought Heinen was a bit high, so maybe it’s just right.
gumgum
Registered User
- Oct 15, 2017
- 772
- 510
I am almost thinking Carlo signs a 1-year deal at a lower hit than most of us are projecting and sort of 'given' the task of proving he can contribute in a more diverse way than he's shown. I think it makes sense for both him and the team, although if you can get him at under 3 against the cap for multiple years, it's a no-brainer. Idk enough about what he's shown in terms of offensive capabilities before playing in the NHL, but he's obviously super mobile and could absolutely stand to push the play more.
- Status
