IDK about the highest paid D-man part, but I agree on the extension. A few years is when we clear a lot of our older contracts and I imagine Chara will be done. At that point you sign McAvoy to an 8-yr deal and give him the keys to the defense...assuming he hasn't taken them by then lol.
New tv money should be there by then. The cap could be way, way higher. I look around at the all around d men in this league, and, their are not many of them. If the cap is 95-100 million when mcavoy signs, which isn’t outlandish given the potential for a new tv deal, I think 12% of the cap is totally reasonable.
New tv money should be there by then. The cap could be way, way higher. I look around at the all around d men in this league, and, their are not many of them. If the cap is 95-100 million when mcavoy signs, which isn’t outlandish given the potential for a new tv deal, I think 12% of the cap is totally reasonable.
True, the TV deal could be a huge factor. I keep forgetting we could see the cap spike with a new TV deal.
I mean I go hard by stats as well - even with that I'd retract no more than maybe a mil or so from Werenski. If it was 5 for 6 I'd say it's fine. The problem would be that his best season by far is his rookie year, but someone like Ekblad - whom I really doubted, has turned it around in his last year or two after also having a good rookie season and not much else. It's obviously betting on potential.
I'd just be careful with saying the Werenski contract is bad just because McAvoy happened to sign a ridiculously good deal. The Nylander and Draisaitl contracts are still good - it's just that the Pastrnak contract sticks out as great in comparison
Edit: The Morrissey contract also looks great in comparison. If the overall point was that highly drafted defensemen get good contracts for basically playing minutes I'd agree, especially compared to later draft picks doing as well or better in those minutes
Oh I said the Werenski deal was an overpay before McAvoy signed. I said as much in the contract post (if you want to see my specific gripe with him there). I am sure he will develop but 3 years at 5 and a 7 mil QA is undeserved at this point. The Ekblad deal (while also an overpay) is defensible due to the term while Werenski's is a bridge.
Great deal for the Bruins, and I imagine the McAvoy camp is banking on the cap skyrocketing with a new team and TV deal in three years time. To get a top pairing defender for less than $5M during a cup window is crucial to help the Bruins find some good supporting pieces for their aging core for a few more cracks at the cup. Then in three years time they can afford to lock up McAvoy for his prime years and lead the next generation of this team.
Oh I said the Werenski deal was an overpay before McAvoy signed. I said as much in the contract post (if you want to see my specific gripe with him there). I am sure he will develop but 3 years at 5 and a 7 mil QA is undeserved at this point. The Ekblad deal (while also an overpay) is defensible due to the term while Werenski's is a bridge.
Do you think Werenski would get over 7.5 on a long term deal? The cap is also higher by a fair margin at this point
ok, that was not what I expected. Thought you were talking about Carlo and JFK (as they are the 3 Bruins RFA this summer). I mean Werenski's contract isn't that horrible, the thing about this contract is that the Bruins will need to pay a ton more 3 years later
Remember when you said the team should bench all their starters against Toronto because the team was done?
you contradict everyone on capfriendly just because you think it's fun....
No. I contradict people making stuff up. Every single report, every one, ever since bob McKenzie suggested that mcavoy wanted a bridge 3 months ago and then back tracked said that the player wanted a long term deal.
No. I contradict people making stuff up. Every single report, every one, ever since bob McKenzie suggested that mcavoy wanted a bridge 3 months ago and then back tracked said that the player wanted a long term deal.
when a 14 year old kid is trying to contradict everyone on everything because he thinks he can be liked or be smarter it doesn't work especially when they guy doesn't use advanced stats because he doesn't understand them.
when a 14 year old kid is trying to contradict everyone on everything because he thinks he can be liked or be smarter it doesn't work especially when they guy doesn't use advanced stats because he doesn't understand them.
Do you want to try again? That was pathetic. I’ll give you a couple options better than what you just spat out.
1. Try again. Be more creative (I’m not 14 so give that up), and let’s have a good chirp.
2. You can just google the reports on what term McAvoy was seeking and say, “ah, my bad. I was going off that McKenzie report from before the playoffs started.”
Do you want to try again? That was pathetic. I’ll give you a couple options better than what you just spat out.
1. Try again. Be more creative (I’m not 14 so give that up), and let’s have a good chirp.
2. You can just google the reports on what term McAvoy was seeking and say, “ah, my bad. I was going off that McKenzie report from before the playoffs started.”
Google is your friend.
lmao, if that was only the case. Keep being upset that Blues beat Bruins in the Stanley Cup. Take it out on people trying to contradict everyone when almost everyone on here has said you attack anyone who doesn't accept your opinion, and yours alone.
lmao, if that was only the case. Keep being upset that Blues beat Bruins in the Stanley Cup. Take it out on people trying to contradict everyone when almost everyone on here has said you attack anyone who doesn't accept your opinion, and yours alone.
This is getting kind of sad. This has nothing to do with anything other than you stating something that is verifiably incorrect as fact.
You were wrong. It has nothing to with the Blues, it has nothing to do with my age, it has to do with you being wrong. If that’s too much for you to handle, and you feel the need to lash out because someone pointed out that you were incorrect about something, perhaps the internet isn’t the place for you. Have a good one
This is getting kind of sad. This has nothing to do with anything other than you stating something that is verifiably incorrect as fact.
You were wrong. It has nothing to with the Blues, it has nothing to do with my age, it has to do with you being wrong. If that’s too much for you to handle, and you feel the need to lash out because someone pointed out that you were incorrect about something, perhaps the internet isn’t the place for you. Have a good one
LMAO I’m the one wrong lol. I got what I said from you are your fan base you freakin ding bat. Don’t say something that isn’t true then lmao.
LMAO I’m the one wrong lol. I got what I said from you are your fan base you freakin ding bat. Don’t say something that isn’t true then lmao.
you said mcavoy wanted a bridge.
I pointed out that literally every report indicated he wanted a long term deal, which is simply a fact (I guess we cannot know for sure if that is really what he wanted, but it is a fact that every single report indicated he wanted a long term deal ever since that mckenzie report before the playoffs).
Remember when you said the team should bench all their starters against Toronto because the team was done?
Remember when you said that McAvoy was going to get paid like 8M or even 6.5 to 7 on a bridge or when you said that Carlo was going to get over 3.5 or 4M? Oh, I guess you never looked yourself in the mirror
Remember when you said that McAvoy was going to get paid like 8M or even 6.5 to 7 on a bridge or when you said that Carlo was going to get over 3.5 or 4M? Oh, I guess you never looked yourself in the mirror
No. That didn’t happen. I said mcavoy would get over 8 on a max term deal though.
Find one instance of me saying that mcavoy would get 7 on a bridge and i’ll Delete my account. You can’t, because you just made it up. I’ve been running around here telling everyone McAvoy was getting short money.
Find one instance of me saying that mcavoy would get 7 on a bridge and i’ll Delete my account. You can’t, because you just made it up. I’ve been running around here telling everyone McAvoy was getting short money.
You’re the worst.
its funny how you are not even recognizing yourself. You never said McAvoy was getting a bridge for 7, first, you've never mentioned that McAvoy would get a bridge. Quite sure that you stuck to your narrative that he'll get a 7 or 8 year deal. second, even if you did, I am quite sure that you also stuck to your narrative that he would get at least 6 or 6.5M. thirdly, even if want to lie about your words, sure, but you stated that Carlo was getting at least 3.5M on a bridge. Even if you stated that Carlo was getting a 2.85 on a bridge, you stuck to your narrative that Backes would needed to be moved in order to create cap. Certainly something funny is going on here. Whatever way this goes, you are wrong
its funny how you are not even recognizing yourself. You never said McAvoy was getting a bridge for 7, first, you've never mentioned that McAvoy would get a bridge. Quite sure that you stuck to your narrative that he'll get a 7 or 8 year deal. second, even if you did, I am quite sure that you also stuck to your narrative that he would get at least 6 or 6.5M. thirdly, even if want to lie about your words, sure, but you stated that Carlo was getting at least 3.5M on a bridge. Even if you stated that Carlo was getting a 2.85 on a bridge, you stuck to your narrative that Backes would needed to be moved in order to create cap. Certainly something funny is going on here. Whatever way this goes, you are wrong
You manage to be accurate for the first sentence. The rest is all incorrect trash.
OldNYIfan a aimé ceci.
Répondre
CapFriendly
CapFriendly