Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Jacob Trouba traded or waived?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
tsujimoto74 said:
The waivers thing feels like a pretty empty threat. Who’s gonna claim him at his full salary/cap hit?
Click to expand...
The Sharks will if they think Trouba can help them compete more (which is a reasonable thing to think). They already did it with Goodrow and his contract. It would make sense to claim here too as a means to get something for doing the Rangers a favor then. Goodrow probably doesn't have trade value but Trouba probably would on his last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poppy Whoa Sonnet
TGWL said:
So you were just stating the obvious? No, they can't trade a player just because they waived him. The whole point in waiving him is to not have him on the roster, and/or to agree to a trade. We already know this.
Click to expand...

No. I was answering another poster and you chimed in with an incorrect (and still incorrect) interpretation of the point I was making.
 
TrufleShufle said:
Yea for a 90 year old he seems to be doing pretty good, really impressive for an 89 year old really.
Click to expand...
Yeah my fat thumbs missed the 2 the second time. Oops. Edited. Autocorrect is better at fixing that for me when I do it with letters than it is at guessing when I fat finger a number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrufleShufle
Even at 50%, he'd still have negative value - he's a bottom pairing defenseman, and I highly doubt the Rangers would retain 50% on him. Some dinosaur is about to bail the Rangers on this albatross of a deal
 
Trxjw said:
No. I was answering another poster and you chimed in with an incorrect (and still incorrect) interpretation of the point I was making.
Click to expand...
If NYR agreed to a trade after Trouba was claimed and then another team claimed Trouba, (which is what the poster said) it would no longer be a NYR problem. So, no, the NHLPA wouldn't step in.
 
Pinkfloyd said:
The Sharks will if they think Trouba can help them compete more (which is a reasonable thing to think). They already did it with Goodrow and his contract. It would make sense to claim here too as a means to get something for doing the Rangers a favor then. Goodrow probably doesn't have trade value but Trouba probably would on his last year.
Click to expand...

I could easily see Trouba regaining some form on a new team and being a value add at next years deadline. Especially at a reduced rate.

He's been objectively bad the last year or so in NY, but I don't think it's representative of all he has left to give. As evidenced by insiders saying the Rangers likely won't have to pay to move him as a cap dump.
 
DRAGO 18 said:
Its far as hell away from New York
Click to expand...

Is that just about his wife's residency in the short term? In all likelihood Anaheim wouldn't even need him this year, more next year, as both Fowler and Dumoulin will probably be gone. They'd probably be happy to let him take a leave of absence for this season. And medical opportunities abound in SoCal.

If he's strictly wanting east coast even long term though then obviously not.

DRAGO 18 said:
, the taxes suck as much or worse than New York
Click to expand...

NY is worse, there's even city tax on top of state. Obviously taxes aren't a big deterrent for him though, otherwise he'd be outta there already.

DRAGO 18 said:
and its a rebuilding team
Click to expand...

They may be coming out of that. They're hovering around .500 and trending up.
 
Pinkfloyd said:
The Sharks will if they think Trouba can help them compete more (which is a reasonable thing to think). They already did it with Goodrow and his contract. It would make sense to claim here too as a means to get something for doing the Rangers a favor then. Goodrow probably doesn't have trade value but Trouba probably would on his last year.
Click to expand...
you seem confident the sharks would claim trouba, can i ask why fabbro wasnt claimed? Just curious since i thought fabbro to the sharks was a lock haha
 
I have been pushing Fowler (1 yr 6.5M remaining) for Trouba (1 yr 8M) since the off season. Maybe some sort of add from the Rangers to make up for the difference in cap, but the Ducks actually save some real dollars with Trouba only owed a 6M salary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lindberg Cheese
Trxjw said:
Putting him on waivers to complete a trade would probably trigger a grievance from the NHLPA as it circumvents his NTC. So there's probably no "deal" around waiving him. I'm sure Drury would be well aware that teams would claim him. So the threat to Trouba is basically "pick your destination from these options, or roll the dice and see what happens."
Click to expand...

It's happened a few times in the past. NHLPA had no recourse.
 
Trxjw said:
Putting him on waivers to complete a trade would probably trigger a grievance from the NHLPA as it circumvents his NTC. So there's probably no "deal" around waiving him. I'm sure Drury would be well aware that teams would claim him. So the threat to Trouba is basically "pick your destination from these options, or roll the dice and see what happens."
Click to expand...
That's why NMC clauses exist. He doesn't have a NMC so 🤷‍♂️

This has always been a possibility ever since the first time this loophole came up and the NMC was created.
 
tsujimoto74 said:
The waivers thing feels like a pretty empty threat. Who’s gonna claim him at his full salary/cap hit?
Click to expand...
Not a CBA genius, but it seems like the waivers option deals with teams he might not want to accept a trade to.

There are teams with plenty of room, and know they'll have room next season also (especially with the cap going up and knowing they might have cap floor problems ahead).

I think Trouba has more value around the league than he has to fans. He's a captain, he plays the big, rugged defensive defenseman role that NHL teams have shown a much greater affinity for than fans.

Some people seem to think the Rangers will have to attach a significant asset to get rid of him. I don't think he'd return a lot in a trade, but I actually think there will be interest, whether trade or waivers, for someone to take on his full cap hit.

I don't think the Rangers are making this move knowing they might have to retain for next season.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Shitbag move? Trouba sucks. He hurts the team on the ice. He won't waive for a trade. He is a bit of a dick himself.
Click to expand...
It's a shitbag move to waive a player so that he can get picked up by a team that he has in his non-trade clause.

It could even be interpreted as a breach of contract.
 
ijuka said:
It's a shitbag move to waive a player so that he can get picked up by a team that he has in his non-trade clause.

It could even be interpreted as a breach of contract.
Click to expand...

If Trouba wanted to protect himself from being waived he should have negotiated a NMC for the duration of his contract.

It's not at all a shitbag move. Waiving a player you think is underperforming is very common.
 
Trxjw said:
Again, him going on waivers is not the issue. I never said it was.



When?
Click to expand...
But the NMC was created because Doug MacLean traded Todd Marchant to the Ducks and he refused to waive. He was then put on waivers and the ducks claimed him.

NHLPA complained and now NMC exists to prevent a player from coming on the waivers. If there is no NMC there is no way to prevent it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom