Dude you can take the contrarian point of view as that is your prerogative but if you took 1000 of the most knowledgeable fans/media/experts you can come up with, I'd be willing to wager a large chunk of my mortgage that 980 of the 1000 would think Gorton took Chevy to the woodshed no matter how you slice and dice it.
Except those 'most knowledgeable media people and experts' wouldn't be operating with fan-generated bias, would they? They wouldn't overlook the fact that Trouba is 1 year away from Unrestricted Free Agency and is holding all the cards...
And wouldn't those media people and 'experts' be aware of the reports that Trouba's agent was sending the message that his client would make it difficult for teams (other than apparently two of them) to not only sign him as a RFA in a timely manner, but sign him to any long term extension?
Why doesn't this context matter when evaluating the trade and the pieces that were exchanged?
If you were talking about a high value player who was already under contract (at a good rate) for multiple years - you would have a point with the analysis you are suggesting... But that's not the case - and you're not accounting for Trouba's pending UFA status nor the reports about his camp trying to control the destination for his trade - which severely limits what Jets GM could ask for or demand... He was dealing from a position of weakness.... Why are fans overlooking this?
I see a ton of people reacting as if we just acquired a player with a dandy of a contract- yet the player we acquired doesn't have a contract at all... If we sign him to an overpayment of a contract - do we still gloat about the cost to make this acquisition? Now if we signed him to an amazing, unbelievable contract - doesn't that enhance how the acquisition is viewed?
Context matters...
I read all of the posts and these are obviously NOT biased Ranger fans and to a man, if I read 400 or so posts, I maybe saw 5-10 of them that thought the Rangers got the worst end of the deal.
The outcome of the trade depends on:
A) How Trouba plays/peforms
B) If the Rangers can sign him long term
C) The cap hit of any long term contract
D) Trading said player at the deadline to recoup assets used in his acquisition
None of these circumstances have happened yet so what does it matter what some fans of another team think about the trade a few days after it happened? Since when do we evaluate our trades based upon what other teams' fans think about it? If a bunch of fans are bashing one of our trades - do we claim that as evidence that the trade was bad? Or do we evaluate it ourselves...
Matter of fact most of these posters were pissed the **** off that the Rangers got such a steal even if Trouba didn't sign an extention with us seeing they surmised as any savvy person would know that at the trade deadline, Gorton can likely recoup the lost first rounder and likely more from a team that thought Trouba was the missing piece for their playoff run.
If we can't negotiate a long term deal with him I'd be very pleased if we re-couped a 1st rounder... However whatever player we draft with that pick will be a year behind in development from a prospect we could have selected a year earlier... Not a huge deal but it's worth pointing out... Also the notion that that 20th overall pick could have been used as a trading chip to move up in this current draft (which obviously didn't happen)...
But again, the trade is not a 'steal' even without an extension if the reports are true that Trouba's camp/agent was taking measures to control his trade destination... The more bidders - the higher the value you can ask for something.... The fewer the bidders, the lower the value goes...
And once again it was overwhelmingly in favor of the Rangers side of the deal as most comments were that Gorton "raped" was used a few times , "heisted", "robbed" Chevy in this deal.
These fans don't seem to understand the context either then...
If there were only 2 teams the Jets could negotiate with - how did we 'rob' Chevy? What could he have realistically demanded for a player whose rights were controlled for only 1 year before becoming a UFA?
If they think there were many teams realistically in the running to acquire Trouba's rights, and that Chevy settled on the offer of a 1st and Pionk despite better offers - then of course they are having an unrealistic reaction to the trade and believe that Trouba should have had a higher return....
So once again you can think what you want but when you have thousands of peeps who are looking at the same exact deal as you are and you are in the .0001% who thinks the Rangers didn't get the better end of the deal whether or not he signs here or not(he likely will and it likely will be in the 8-8.5 for 7 range IMO), you are likely going to end up being not just wrong but very wrong in your assessment. If your not, than I'd like you to be the next GM of the Rangers...lol
Maximus, I'm sure you really counted the 400 posts you read on the Canes board and I'm sure you counted out the 'thousands of peeps' you claimed above...
I never made the claim that the Rangers didnt get the better end of the deal... Find one post where I said either the Jets or the Rangers got the better end of the deal? You can't, I never made that claim... You're arguing against something I didn't make an argument for...
Certain users are acting like the trade cost us nothing and like we landed a signed #1 defenseman... That's not the context at all... We didn't trade Hayes for Trouba - and we only acquired 1 guaranteed year of Trouba's services....
If we end up signing him to a cap hit that many of our fans are not okay with - do you think these same individuals are going to be singing the praises about what a 'steal' this deal was for us? Of course not... Then the conversation will shift to why we traded away a valuable asset for a player just to sign him to a contract he could have been offered (and signed) as a free agent...
All we really received was 1 guaranteed year of a player's services at a time that this team is not ready to be competitive in the playoffs... How this trade will be viewed will depend on his performance and whether or not the Rangers get him to sign a long term deal at an ACCEPTABLE rate... Or if they can't negotiate a deal, if they can re-coup the asset they traded away to acquire him... And don't forget a player can have a poor season and decrease his value - or get injured leading up to the deadline...
People calling this trade a 'steal' don't seem to have any regard for the context... Nor the reports that the Jets could only negotiate with 2 teams (realistically)....
