Player Discussion Brad Marchand IV - CONFIRMED signed 8 years @ 6.125/yr

[ODAAT]

If hes asking for 7x7 I'd hope they negotiate it down to 7x6.5 or something along those lines.

Either way, its acceptable.

I don`t give him a blank cheque and to name his price but no way in he** to I squabble about $500,000, that`s a Sinden move and I had about enough of that

 

[kdog82]

Define an "extended Marchand".

Do you mean Sweeney makes a long-term commitment to Marchand, just to turn around the next day and ship him to Carolina? Not happening, wouldn't be a agent left in the business with any trust in Sweeney.

Or he allows the Marchand camp to talk to Carolina before the deal is finalized in order to work out an extension?

Cause if it's option 2, why in the blazes would Marchand agree to an extension in Carolina unless it's a major over-payment.

And why would Carolina deal it's 24-year old top D-man on a very good contract for a 28-year old winger about to get a big long-term extension.

You're right on all points. Just throwing names out there as defenseman options. Not sure if Marchand would want to sign with Carolina, however any player that has played there loves it. Add to that they have a great young and up in coming team.

If he were traded to Carolina I'd imagine there would have to be an extension in place from Carolina's management.

 

[Tim Vezina Thomas]

I don`t give him a blank cheque and to name his price but no way in he** to I squabble about $500,000, that`s a Sinden move and I had about enough of that

Its all a negotiation. Negotiating isnt always about squabbling, its about getting a fair price.

What if you gave an extra 500k to 5 players you didnt need to? It adds up.

I generally agree with you though. I wouldnt lose Marchancd over 500k (if that wasnt obvious).

 

[BruinDust]

You're right on all points. Just throwing names out there as defenseman options. Not sure if Marchand would want to sign with Carolina, however any player that has played there loves it. Add to that they have a great young and up in coming team.

If he were traded to Carolina I'd imagine there would have to be an extension in place from Carolina's management.

Agree, and I would think the number for Marchand to extend in Carolina starts with an 8, whereas in Boston it starts with a 7.

At least that's what I would do if faced with this scenario. You want me to take the uncertainty going to a team/management/city I am completely unfamiliar with, my price would go up.

 

[Coach Parker]

This defence with no Eriksson and no Marchand equals perhaps one of the most boring teams to ever be assembled.

1-0 wins or 5-1 losses. Goals stay the same.

Sign him long-term. if 7x7 is the number you sign it today.

 

[northeastern]

This defence with no Eriksson and no Marchand equals perhaps one of the most boring teams to ever be assembled.

1-0 wins or 5-1 losses. Goals stay the same.

Sign him long-term. if 7x7 is the number you sign it today.

Yup. And to add onto what marchy does in the scorebook he is also entertaining and the fans like him, this makes him worth a little extra.

7x7 wouldn't upset me one bit

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

I'm extremely concerned with Brad's suspension history. All eyes are on him, and he rarely gets the benefit of the doubt.

If he continues to play on the edge, will the suspensions keep coming, and will they increase in length?

If he backs off of his aggressive style, will he still be as effective?

 

[BruinDust]

I'm extremely concerned with Brad's suspension history. All eyes are on him, and he rarely gets the benefit of the doubt.

If he continues to play on the edge, will the suspensions keep coming, and will they increase in length?

If he backs off of his aggressive style, will he still be as effective?

In some ways he already has, and it has made him more effective.

Look, Marchand is always going to be a risk to cross the line and do something stupid, a leopard doesn't change his spots. See his hip-check to Boroweicki last year.

But I've clearly seen a difference in his game since the end of 2014. That series vs. the Habs was a wake up call I believe. He got essentially not one but two reputation calls against him in game 7. And since then we've witness a more-toned down, and more effective, Marchand.

 

[don]

I still maintain that he is the only "trade chip" we have that could get us that D-man we need without giving up our future. You build from the back out. It's been asked where his goals will come from, Eriksson's are already lost. That can't be answered now but, possibly, one of the youngsters steps up. I'm not even positive about the comments I've made about our D's effectiveness are correct. I do know that the D is older and slower, and that speedy RWs blow right past Chara. I also know that in order to trade for a good man you're going to have to give up a good man. Prospects and draft picks won't do it. Don't fall in love with a player because tomorrow you might have to hate him.

 

[Ladyfan]

Bruins will probably sign Marchand, but I'll ask again. If Vesey signs would anyone (Sweeney) entertain dealing Marchand for that RH dman?

Would Carolina deal Justin Faulk for an extended Marchand? Something along these lines.

NO

 

[Ladyfan]

In some ways he already has, and it has made him more effective.

Look, Marchand is always going to be a risk to cross the line and do something stupid, a leopard doesn't change his spots. See his hip-check to Boroweicki last year.

But I've clearly seen a difference in his game since the end of 2014. That series vs. the Habs was a wake up call I believe. He got essentially not one but two reputation calls against him in game 7. And since then we've witness a more-toned down, and more effective, Marchand.

I totally agree with this post.

 

[Ladyfan]

I still maintain that he is the only "trade chip" we have that could get us that D-man we need without giving up our future. You build from the back out. It's been asked where his goals will come from, Eriksson's are already lost. That can't be answered now but, possibly, one of the youngsters steps up. I'm not even positive about the comments I've made about our D's effectiveness are correct. I do know that the D is older and slower, and that speedy RWs blow right past Chara. I also know that in order to trade for a good man you're going to have to give up a good man. Prospects and draft picks won't do it. Don't fall in love with a player because tomorrow you might have to hate him.

Do not trade one of your best players to fill a hole. Fix the D and destroy the offense....makes NO sense to me.

 

[Seidenbergy]

It's been asked where his goals will come from, Eriksson's are already lost. That can't be answered now but, possibly, one of the youngsters steps up.

Gonna need a hell of a lot more than one youngster to step up to replace the 70ish goals Marchand and Eriksson account for on average.

 

[hoss75]

This defence with no Eriksson and no Marchand equals perhaps one of the most boring teams to ever be assembled.

1-0 wins or 5-1 losses. Goals stay the same.

Sign him long-term. if 7x7 is the number you sign it today.

Yakety Sax could be the new song they use when the team takes the ice.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

In some ways he already has, and it has made him more effective.

Look, Marchand is always going to be a risk to cross the line and do something stupid, a leopard doesn't change his spots. See his hip-check to Boroweicki last year.

But I've clearly seen a difference in his game since the end of 2014. That series vs. the Habs was a wake up call I believe. He got essentially not one but two reputation calls against him in game 7. And since then we've witness a more-toned down, and more effective, Marchand.

Exactly. Remember, that was only about 40 games ago, give or take a game or 2.

I like Brad a lot, and he has been effective, but I don't know if I share your view of a toned-down Marchand.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Its all a negotiation. Negotiating isnt always about squabbling, its about getting a fair price.

What if you gave an extra 500k to 5 players you didnt need to? It adds up.

I generally agree with you though. I wouldnt lose Marchancd over 500k (if that wasnt obvious).

To be honest, that's what I'm afraid of. Each contract in a vacuum, sure, don't lose him over 500k, but when 5 of your guys need that extra 500k; that's 2.5 which usually can play for a solid NHL player in of itself.

In Marchand's case... I add extra years if it means getting the AAV down.

 

[BruinDust]

To be honest, that's what I'm afraid of. Each contract in a vacuum, sure, don't lose him over 500k, but when 5 of your guys need that extra 500k; that's 2.5 which usually can play for a solid NHL player in of itself.

In Marchand's case... I add extra years if it means getting the AAV down.

On a player heading into his 30s, adding extra years just to get an AAV down by 500k is short-sighted and something Chiarelli would do.

I don't have a problem giving Marchand an extra 500k if I can get him on the term I would want. He's a top end guy, those aren't the guys you play extreme hardball with if the difference is only 500k per year.

The problem with the extra 500k is when you start giving it to the Pailles, Campbells, Kellys, McQuaids, and Kevan Millers of the world.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

On a player heading into his 30s, adding extra years just to get an AAV down by 500k is short-sighted and something Chiarelli would do.

I don't have a problem giving Marchand an extra 500k if I can get him on the term I would want. He's a top end guy, those aren't the guys you play extreme hardball with if the difference is only 500k per year.

The problem with the extra 500k is when you start giving it to the Pailles, Campbells, Kellys, McQuaids, and Kevan Millers of the world.

8 years, Marchand will be turning 36 at the end of it.

If Marchand was over 30, I'd agree, but for a player going into his prime, I'd easily give him max years, especially if it lowered it more than 500k.

I fully agree about giving the 3rd tier talent the extra money.

 

[DKH]

What do u do if Marchand wants 8/64

His entire career he's been in current dollars at best a $5 M player

7/49 is a bit to long and to high in a cap world

Like to see them get it to 6 years at least even if went the full $7

They probably go $7 M AAV but the last two years in cash is 4

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I think 6 million is the max. I like his play a lot but... 7 is too much and too many years.

 

[Seidenbergy]

I think 6 million is the max. I like his play a lot but... 7 is too much and too many years.

I want whatever you are smoking.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I want whatever you are smoking.

Marchand seems like a 49 million dollar player to you? I don't think so. I'm one of his bigger fans too. He is one of our most skilled players. Too many big forward contracts will be difficult to support if the Bruins plan on improving the defense.

 

[BruinDust]

I think 6 million is the max. I like his play a lot but... 7 is too much and too many years.

What marketplace are you operating in where Marchand is a 6 million AAV player.

Jamie Benn just got 9.5 million AAV. Your telling me Marchand is worth 37% less AAV than Benn?

 

[ODAAT]

Its all a negotiation. Negotiating isnt always about squabbling, its about getting a fair price.

What if you gave an extra 500k to 5 players you didnt need to? It adds up.

I generally agree with you though. I wouldnt lose Marchancd over 500k (if that wasnt obvious).

I hear what your saying and agree, with players with less impact than a Marchand, I don`t mind a little hard ball, but not a chance I risk disrespecting Marchand by shorting him a half mill after the years of productive service he`s given and I suspect will continue to give

 

[ODAAT]

I think 6 million is the max. I like his play a lot but... 7 is too much and too many years.

There`s no way he signs on in Boston for 6 mill nor should he. He`s worth so much to this team and if he were to hit the open market, this summer as an example, he would have easily snagged a 7 mill deal IMO