This reminds me of the $5M x 3 contract extension that LA gave Cal Petersen after only 54 NHL games. That ended up looking bad before it even started.
Confirmed Signing with Link: [COL] G Mackenzie Blackwood signs extension with the Avalanche (5 years, $5.25M AAV)
- Thread starter RoyIsALegend
- Start date
Sorry you’re upset. I heard a rumor that Avs fans were not happy with fourgiev.
BleedBlue14
UrGeNcY
Can’t imagine the Avs FO felt very comfortable about this one.
I just don’t understand how these guys with such a short track record with minimal if any success keep getting so much term.
I just don’t understand how these guys with such a short track record with minimal if any success keep getting so much term.
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 17,552
- 25,420
Yes, we were not. He was a good pickup for the price though, and it wasn't an egregious contract that he was given. He really was good in his first year. Last year he started trending downwards, and the mistake was made not making an upgrade during the summer.
This doesn't take away that it was a good bet and worked out at first.
theVladiator
Registered User
- May 26, 2018
- 1,195
- 1,344
From my point of view, the difference in contracts is most likely due to Georgiev being RFA at the time of signing, and Blackwood a UFA at the start of his extension.
But, there is a good chance Blackwood will work out extremely well for the Avs. And if he isn't working out, I do not think he would be so terrible as to become Campbell level anchor.
Reality Czech
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 6,142
- 9,979
B-but GEORGIEV! Signing any player comes with risk that it will not pan out the way it was planned to, I'm sure that MacFarland and the Avs staff had seen enough to determine that this was a risk that they were willing to take. Blackwood said he was looking for term and I would bet on this contract to go well for at least 3 years, he's a very good goalie.
Puckstop40
Registered User
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
I'm one of those Avs fans that wasn't happy with Georgiev. But being unhappy with a player in the last year and a half of a cheap, short term and pretty easily dumpable contract doesn't mean the scouts did a horrible job in identifying him, and should never be trusted again.
- May 1, 2011
- 135,123
- 65,935
I’ll tell you what, I still think this is risky.
But when I realize that Oettinger just got an $8.2 million per year extension, along with Swayman, both are better than Blackwood, it’s not so surprising that Blackwood got this much.
That said, I think both of them probably got overpaid as well. They should probably be making a bit more than what Blackwood got on this deal, but not $8+ million.
But when I realize that Oettinger just got an $8.2 million per year extension, along with Swayman, both are better than Blackwood, it’s not so surprising that Blackwood got this much.
That said, I think both of them probably got overpaid as well. They should probably be making a bit more than what Blackwood got on this deal, but not $8+ million.
Shark Finn
uɐℲ ɥʇ8 ,sǝıddn⅁
Well, Blackwood has played four times that amount of games already.
Yes. I agree. The scouts did identify him. And I congratulate the scouts on identifying others.
Yes of course. They identify goalies. That’s what they do.They have had a couple hits.
Why does Blackwood look to be in that group?
Freaky Styley
Registered User
The problem is that I have yet to see anyone with this stance offer a better alternative. The point is that guys capable of being starters are making at least 5M. The other guys are unproven rookies, career backups, or guys being paid over 5M.
Avs cap structure doesn't allow them to have a starter at a higher pay grade unless they do something drastic. To your point, handing out big contracts to goalies doesn't always pay off regardless of the player since it's a variable position year to year.
It was clear he was the best option available, and had they waited to sign him, he probably is earning 6M+ in the offseason after half a year with the Avs. Offer a realistic better alternative on the goalie market for the next 3 seasons and I'll buy that they made a mistake with the trade and contract. Avs tried to roll the dice in the bargain bin the last few years and didn't want to continue down that route with their window dwindling.
What naysayers are also choosing to ignore is that there's probably an equal chance that this guy puts up similar numbers to Sorokin/Shesterkin/Ullmark/Saros etc in and Avs sweater as there is that this will be an anchor deal. So far with the trajectory of his play in SJ and with the Avs so far, it's more likely it's a good deal that works out for both sides.
Last edited:
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
The bigger cap hits are all a function of the cap going up. With the cap going up to $92.5m, Blackwood's extension will be about 5.7% of the cap in year 1. 10 years ago, 5.7% of the cap would have been $3.66m. 5 years ago it would have been $4.65m. Hard to say he's overpaid in that context.
As for Oettinger and Swayman, $8.25 AAV is 8.9% of a 92.5m cap. 10 years ago, it's $5.75m. 5 years ago, $7.25m. And in three more years, 8.9% of the cap will likely be over $9m.
I do agree that this is a risky contract, but I'd also say that about pretty much every goalie contract longer than 3 years. I also think it would be much riskier for the Avs to go into the off-season with the plan being to find a new, medium term starter that is better than Blackwood. For one thing, there's no one expected to be on the UFA market that fits that bill. For the other thing, there's no one available in the trade market that fits that bill and wouldn't cost a lot more than they already gave up for Blackwood. So, despite being risky, it's also the best available option.
lionsDen
Hated And Proud
- Jan 26, 2022
- 4,054
- 2,597
If he kept like he’s playing now5.25 wouldn’t be on the table
If he kept like he’s playing now5.25 wouldn’t be on the table
syz
[1, 5, 6, 14]
- Jul 13, 2007
- 30,780
- 16,496
It's hasty if nothing else. Avs are a team that can survive with "good enough" goaltending, so maybe it ends up being fine... but also if you're that kind of team maybe you don't need to throw this much money and term at somebody so quickly. Rising goalie prices definitely plays a part but they probably could've given it a few more months here at least.
Shane Diesel
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,475
- 3,320
I've already asked you in a prior post if Grubauer should be considered a good goaltender based on his Vezina votes in 2021. Why have you ignored that question? I mean if Vezina votes are a major criteria and GMs are all knowing, we must make the logical conclusion that Grubauer is a pretty good goalie, correct?
But you can't say this out loud because it would make you look silly.
See above.
Last edited:
a mangy Meowth
Ross Colton Fan
What do you want people to say? We've taken some swings and missed on a lot of them. We also won a cup within the last several years under this model.
