Confirmed with Link: K'Andre Miller - Re-signs with Rangers - 2 years @ 3.872 million

[mas0764]

This is just more stating your preferences/opinions as fact.

Yeah, again, that's what debating is.

We both know the type of game Trouba plays, the kind of hits he throws. We could easily say not all goals are the same, some are game winners, some are garbage time. They still all count. Trouba throws meaningful hits and flat out almost triples Graves' output. It is not meaningless no matter how much that would help your narrative.

No, you couldn't really say that.

Well, you could, but it's silly.

Hits en masse are demonstrated to not really be a helpful stat towards winning hockey.

I didn't say Trouba was worth 8mil.

Thank goodness.

Are we arguing things I didn't say now? I said Trouba at 6.5 wasn't a BAD value. And that he's a better, more valuable player than Ryan Graves.

Ryan Graves is better all over the ice than Trouba, except throwing big hits, which is not important to winning hockey.

Trouba is worth about $4m compared to the contracts his peers have. Because of his name recognition and size, I expect he'd get more than that, but it would be an overpayment for things that don't really matter.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. GM's make bad decisions... like signing Graves over Trouba would be. I'm sure you think you are a better evaluator of talent than GM's and scouting staffs are. Some Dunning Krueger action going on. Hahahaha. You'd straight up rather have Graves than Trouba, you think Graves is a better, more valuable player? That's fine. But lets not pretend its fact, or even that a majority of hockey people would agree with you. Hahahaha.

I'm not gonna get into this digression. You have certainly disagreed with management at times and been right about it. Being management doesn't insulate you from mistakes; therefore citing this "GMs don't agree with you" argument is bad arguing that's not really worth rebutting.

 

[bhamill]

Yeah, again, that's what debating is.



No, you couldn't really say that.

Well, you could, but it's silly.

Hits en masse are demonstrated to not really be a helpful stat towards winning hockey.




Thank goodness.



Ryan Graves is better all over the ice than Trouba, except throwing big hits, which is not important to winning hockey.

Trouba is worth about $4m compared to the contracts his peers have. Because of his name recognition and size, I expect he'd get more than that, but it would be an overpayment for things that don't really matter.



I'm not gonna get into this digression. You have certainly disagreed with management at times and been right about it. Being management doesn't insulate you from mistakes; therefore citing this "GMs don't agree with you" argument is bad arguing that's not really worth rebutting.

No, debating is NOT presenting opinion as fact, regardless of you continuing to state that particular falsehood as fact. You can state your opinion and support it with fact and other opinions, but stating opinion as fact is, in fact, not debating. hahahaha.

Aside from that, there's nothing more to be said. You've given your opinion and stated I'm wrong multiple times. I've disagreed with your opinion multiple times and told you where you were factually wrong. It's just round and round and Trouba is still objectively worth more than Graves on the open market no matter how many subjective qualifiers you want to try to stick to it. He's objectively a more valuable player. Which isn't saying much because Graves is overpaid at 4.5 million. Hahahaha.
Have a good one buddy. I'm sure we will find something else to disagree on even though I tend to agree with you more than disagree!

 

[will1066]

Phone battery at 79%. It's a sign.

 

[GAGLine]

The decision to acquire Trouba is not nearly as inexcusable as the continued desire to retain him.

We should be desperate to pawn him off as soon as we can, especially if we could trick a team into giving us a first for him, as teams will foolishly often pay for size for size's sake.

That contract was before we knew the cap would flatten, before we knew we had a #1PP QB in Fox, and before we knew that Trouba actually stunk on defense.

The info we had then, it was an overpay, but at least a little more understandable. With 4 years of data now, anyone who doesn't want him off this roster needs to have their head examined.

He has an NMC for 1 more year. Trading him before it changes to an NTC isn't really an option.

Even if he had agreed to waive his NMC for certain teams, there's no guarantee that those teams would have been interested, or would have been willing to take on his entire cap hit.

Even if we somehow managed to move his entire cap hit, how would we replace him? How much would that cost?

Trouba is overpaid, but as a player he still adds value to the team. The logistics of trying to move and replace him aren't worth whatever cap savings we'd get from it.

 

[mas0764]

He has an NMC for 1 more year. Trading him before it changes to an NTC isn't really an option.

Even if he had agreed to waive his NMC for certain teams, there's no guarantee that those teams would have been interested, or would have been willing to take on his entire cap hit.

Even if we somehow managed to move his entire cap hit, how would we replace him? How much would that cost?

Trouba is overpaid, but as a player he still adds value to the team. The logistics of trying to move and replace him aren't worth whatever cap savings we'd get from it.

The correct approach to team building isn't always to think about today, but tomorrow.

We have Robertson and Jones in the pipeline, Gustafson is an underrated addition, etc.

I'm not gonna lose tremendous sleep at night if I have to sign a solid 3rd pair D for 2.5mx1 and play him in the top 4 for another year while Schneider/Jones/Robertson continues to marinate.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

found this today

 

[Beer League Sniper]

The Trouba and Panarin contracts were signed the summer before Covid with the assumption that the cap would continue to rise normally. Of course, leave it to fate that we sign our two largest contracts (at the time) and something literally unprecedented happens to make them crippling deals.

Trouba's deal probably looks bad no matter what, but it's easier to swallow if top pair D are all making that, with guys like Fox pulling in $11-12M. Instead, we have a #4 making borderline #1 money.

Panarin's deal is still one of the highest AAVs in the league a whole 4 years after it was signed. As a GM, there's just no way you could have expected that to be the case.

 

[egelband]

I've said before that there should be a cap discount for re-signing players that you've drafted. Being able to offer an 8th year isn't enough of an advantage. The problem is, the owners don't want a single cent outside of the cap system, so it's never going to happen. The advantage of drafting well is really blunted in the NHL.

NHL. Penny wise. Pound foolish.

 

[Brief Candle]

Listen, is Miller perfect? Hell no. He's made some bonehead plays. However I noticed a trend with him - Typically, when he makes a REALLY shit play, and ESPECIALLY if it leads to a goal, he usually scores or sets up a goal to make up for it.

I like the kid. He's 23! He's still got room to learn and grow, and I'm glad it's with us and not another team.

 

[Larrybiv]

There should be no cap penalty for signing/re-signing any drafted player or player that made their NHL debut with the team. Its ridiculous that the NHL penalizes teams when they do something right, and somehow teams like Tampa and Vegas are allowed to circumvent the cap at will and win Cups.

Agreed, but not sure why I agree. Hypothetically, if there were no penalty then what door would that open in as much as the league and the repercussions? I mean, there must be some "reason" as to why the league wants it that way. Reasons that we may not see nor understand. Anyone here have a legit Devils advocate answer? I don't, I'm not that smart anymore.

 

[Trxjw]

The Trouba and Panarin contracts were signed the summer before Covid with the assumption that the cap would continue to rise normally. Of course, leave it to fate that we sign our two largest contracts (at the time) and something literally unprecedented happens to make them crippling deals.

Trouba's deal probably looks bad no matter what, but it's easier to swallow if top pair D are all making that, with guys like Fox pulling in $11-12M. Instead, we have a #4 making borderline #1 money.

Panarin's deal is still one of the highest AAVs in the league a whole 4 years after it was signed. As a GM, there's just no way you could have expected that to be the case.

Making Panarin the 2nd highest paid player in the NHL when he's not the 2nd best player in the NHL seems like a pretty poor investment regardless of the expected cap increase. Not to mention knowing full well that the guy plays the easiest position to find cheap value in the sport. But maybe that's just me.

 

[mas0764]

Making Panarin the 2nd highest paid player in the NHL when he's not the 2nd best player in the NHL seems like a pretty poor investment regardless of the expected cap increase. But maybe that's just me.

Somestimes you have to overpay. Not every single overpay is always a terrible idea; if the overpay is kept in check, and you aren't always doing it.

One of the Rangers' biggest problems is that they have very few value deals. And the ones they do have are short. If Shesterkin were locked up for $7m for 8 years instead of $5m for 4 years, that would have been way better (I say this not knowing what it would have taken to get Shesterkin to sign for 8 years, I'm just saying hypothetically).

I tend to think if you get a top 5-7 player in the league in free agency, which for a 2-3 year period, Panarin probably was right there in that range, it's ok to make him the 2nd or 3rd highest player in the game. He was getting MVP votes and if his team wasn't ass he might have won it.

Another Rangers problem is that they did it at the wrong time and then they let his presence influence the rest of their personnel moves in order to win during his prime. Instead they should have treated him as "showtime," for their fanbase to put butts in seats, let him pile up regular season points, while they continued to suck and amass talent around him. If, for example, we were just this year getting back to the playoffs, and had pawned off guys like Kreider, not signed Trocheck, other expensive moves, we'd have another 6-8 high end youth pieces, we'd be loaded for bear for the next decade, and Panarin could be the elder statesman in our top 6 as he aged gracefully while the youth was still cheap.

Instead we are trying to cram a window in now, out of order, we aren't good enough because we don't have enough cheap youth, and we are up against the cap with a roster that has, heretofore, sucked complete ass at 5v5 and has no hope of winning a Cup without unforeseen leaps from Kakko and Laf, or leaps from the whole roster from a new coach implementing a new system. How do you add to a roster that isn't good enough when you have no cap space? But then again, the whole reason we are in this position is because we have committed to giving guys like Trocheck big bucks.

Trocheck is a very nice player and in a different universe for another team, at that price, he could have been the missing link. If you envision a scenario 2-3 years from now for us when Kakko and Laf are scoring 70-80 points each and Othmann and Perrault are here as 50 pointers in the middle 6, but Chytil is still our only young center, in that world a Trocheck could be the missing piece.

But not in a world where the team is miles away by every 5v5 metric.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Making Panarin the 2nd highest paid player in the NHL when he's not the 2nd best player in the NHL seems like a pretty poor investment regardless of the expected cap increase. Not to mention knowing full well that the guy plays the easiest position to find cheap value in the sport. But maybe that's just me.

I don't disagree with you, but Panarin's deal looks a whole lot better with guys like Point, Kaprizov, Barkov, Huberdeau, and Pastrnak making even more. And most of that list almost certainly would have, if the flat cap never happens.

 

[Synergy27]

I don't disagree with you, but Panarin's deal looks a whole lot better with guys like Point, Kaprizov, Barkov, Huberdeau, and Pastrnak making even more. And most of that list almost certainly would have, if the flat cap never happens.

?

Might be just me, but I happily take all of those guys except Huberdeau over Bread.

 

[Trxjw]

I don't disagree with you, but Panarin's deal looks a whole lot better with guys like Point, Kaprizov, Barkov, Huberdeau, and Pastrnak making even more. And most of that list almost certainly would have, if the flat cap never happens.

Does it? Each of those guys makes less money than Panarin on their new deal and you can easily make the argument for most of them being just as good, if not better than Panarin.

I get the argument that when the cap goes up, Panarin's deal will look better relative to it. But for the remaining years on his contract I don't expect many players to surpass his number. Maybe 5 to 10 guys come up in the next 3 years who could be looking for that sort of cash? So he'll be 34, on the downside of his career, and will still be likely one of the 10 or 12 highest paid guys in the NHL.

The best case scenario from here on out is that we stop looking at Panarin as a guy who makes too much money to be a support player. Because that means Lafreniere, Kakko, and Chytil have all established themselves as top-end players. That's only going to make his contract look worse.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Making Panarin the 2nd highest paid player in the NHL when he's not the 2nd best player in the NHL seems like a pretty poor investment regardless of the expected cap increase. Not to mention knowing full well that the guy plays the easiest position to find cheap value in the sport. But maybe that's just me.

2nd highest contract =/= 2nd highest player. Contracts have to do with timing. It's absurd to compare contracts from different years and complain that someone got a contract that consistent with his standing in the league. If someone's a better player but got a contract 5 years ago you really expect his contract to be higher?

 

[mike14]

Agreed, but not sure why I agree. Hypothetically, if there were no penalty then what door would that open in as much as the league and the repercussions? I mean, there must be some "reason" as to why the league wants it that way. Reasons that we may not see nor understand. Anyone here have a legit Devils advocate answer? I don't, I'm not that smart anymore.

The simple answer is the league wanted cost-certainty, so the cap was introduced. Owners wanted to be sure that no more than 50% of HRR went to the players.
If you were to exclude certain players from the cup number, you still wouldn't be able to breach the 50% overall in terms of league payroll. So you'd somehow have to track the 50% number, but then create another number to refelect how much each team has to spend which is = 50% HRR - value of all contracts signed by draftees of your team. That'd be a nightmare to work out and manage

 

[Larrybiv]

The simple answer is the league wanted cost-certainty, so the cap was introduced. Owners wanted to be sure that no more than 50% of HRR went to the players.
If you were to exclude certain players from the cup number, you still wouldn't be able to breach the 50% overall in terms of league payroll. So you'd somehow have to track the 50% number, but then create another number to refelect how much each team has to spend which is = 50% HRR - value of all contracts signed by draftees of your team. That'd be a nightmare to work out and manage

 

[duhmetreE]

Still think this kid has Norris potential.

Would not be surprised that he has a Norris caliber season on his contract year.

 

[bhamill]

2nd highest contract =/= 2nd highest player. Contracts have to do with timing. It's absurd to compare contracts from different years and complain that someone got a contract that consistent with his standing in the league. If someone's a better player but got a contract 5 years ago you really expect his contract to be higher?

They also have to do with value. Pan's a bad value at this point and has been for years. He's not the 2nd best player in the NHL, he's not the 15th best player. His sole contribution is scoring and he was 17th regular season. He's probably the 35th best player in the NHL if he is lucky. In the playoffs he wasn't the 50th best player. Hell he wasn't even the 10th best NYR...
Why are we arguing this at this point? He's a regular season producer who has failed us in the playoffs. Does he suck? No. He produces at a high level during the regular season. Is he worth 11.5 million AAV? f*** no. Anybody think he is?

 

[chosen]

Does it? Each of those guys makes less money than Panarin on their new deal and you can easily make the argument for most of them being just as good, if not better than Panarin.

I get the argument that when the cap goes up, Panarin's deal will look better relative to it. But for the remaining years on his contract I don't expect many players to surpass his number. Maybe 5 to 10 guys come up in the next 3 years who could be looking for that sort of cash? So he'll be 34, on the downside of his career, and will still be likely one of the 10 or 12 highest paid guys in the NHL.

The best case scenario from here on out is that we stop looking at Panarin as a guy who makes too much money to be a support player. Because that means Lafreniere, Kakko, and Chytil have all established themselves as top-end players. That's only going to make his contract look worse.

Panarin took less than offered by other teams.

Market value determines salary and will always determine salary.

If your highest paid player is your best point-getter every season, he's not part of the problem.

 

[bhamill]

Panarin took less than offered by other teams.

Market value determines salary and will always determine salary.

If your highest paid player is your best point-getter every season, he's not part of the problem.

If he disappears in the playoffs he certainly IS a part of the problem. Since our problem isn't regular season failure, but playoff failure.
And him taking less here only means he would have been an even worse value for those other teams.

 

[Trxjw]

Panarin took less than offered by other teams.

Market value determines salary and will always determine salary.

If your highest paid player is your best point-getter every season, he's not part of the problem.

Doesn't matter if it's less than other teams. The highest paid UFAs are always bad value. GMs aren't obligated to pay an inflated price. They just do it because they're idiots.

He was a bad investment at the wrong time. Absolutely part of the problem, IMO.

 

[chosen]

If he disappears in the playoffs he certainly IS a part of the problem. Since our problem isn't regular season failure, but playoff failure.
And him taking less here only means he would have been an even worse value for those other teams.

Give me a list of Rangers who produced as expected in the playoffs. It ain't long.

He's one of the central reasons they got to the playoffs.

Doesn't matter if it's less than other teams. The highest paid UFAs are always bad value. GMs aren't obligated to pay an inflated price. They just do it because they're idiots.

He was a bad investment at the wrong time. Absolutely part of the problem, IMO.

Besides Fox and Shesterkin, who isn't part of the problem?

 

[bhamill]

Give me a list of Rangers who produced as expected in the playoffs. It ain't long.

He's one of the central reasons they got to the playoffs.



Besides Fox and Shesterkin, who isn't part of the problem?

As expected? Short list. But irrelevant. How does this absolve the player that should be our leading performer? And he disappeared last year too. When many others lived up to expectations. I didn’t say he was THE problem, I disagreed that he wasn’t PART of the problem.
Yes one of the central reasons for our regular season success… and our playoff failure. Personally, if we are going to get blown out in the first round, I’d rather miss the playoffs and get better draft position.