Speculation: Roster Building Thread LVIII: At part 58, I am out of titles.

[TheBloodyNine]

No, and I doubt that's how they think. That means something went wrong along the way they put very little weight into but unlikely does not mean never.

If they are happy with their process right now then no result will change that, nor should it.

Fans can second guess all day, management should never.

If something went wrong that they didn’t put weight into it means they failed to see that something as a possibility and therefore made a rash decision based on wrong information. Would not be good for the rebuild.

 

[Avery16]

It wouldn't be embarrassing. Trouba is difficult. Just like ROR.

If he wants to sign for 1 year only then I hope he is traded

Just like the ROR that won Conn Smythe for helping deliver St. Louis their franchise first Stanley Cup?

 

[Hire Sather]

Just like the ROR that won Conn Smythe for helping deliver St. Louis their franchise first Stanley Cup?

Great. Hard to do that if he doesn't sign a contract. Just don't want to deal with the aggravation.

 

[Leetch3]

I can’t imagine a situation where the Rangers go through all this effort to acquire Trouba only to flip him 6 months later

It would be quite frankly embarrassing if that’s the plan

literally zero chance that is the plan

 

[zukeisgone]

I think it’s as simple as Gorts maximizing his time frames. Trouba and his contract is fait accompli

 

[bl02]

Hope deal gets done because most likely if we trade Trouba at the trade deadline that most likely means we pick 14ish instead of top 5/6 if we never traded for him in the first place. Only positive is that I see us getting better than the Pionk/20th overall package if we trade him.

 

[Lays]

Trouba isn’t getting a contract until Gorton clears some cap space. Like someone else said if we sign Trouba and then try to clear cap we have no leverage in trades

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Smith buy out, Names trade gets us there with spare change - do it

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Trouba isn’t getting a contract until Gorton clears some cap space. Like someone else said if we sign Trouba and then try to clear cap we have no leverage in trades

His arbitration date is the 25th, so it's safe to say he'll have a contract by then. I think teams just need to look at the Rangers situation to tell them they don't really have much leverage

 

[LiveLongandProspal]

I think Staal has a better contract than Loui Eriksson.

 

[Ola]

literally zero chance that is the plan

Of course it’s not THE plan, but an option? Of course.

I don’t mind the 1 year option much at all. This organization is — obsessed — with giving long term commitments to big names from other places while forcing our home grown kids into short term deals “to prove themselves”.

There is a heck of a downside with giving a kid a bridge deal, a nightmare we have suffered too many times.

But what is the downside of giving Trouba a 1-year deal? There is an upside, if we don’t like him, we don’t have to commit. We can trade him. But what if we like him? Well he won’t make a ton more then than he would make now. It’s not like there is any “risk” of him playing like an 11m D, and really, if he did, that is a downside I am willing to take. But what if we love him, but he don’t want to stick around? I don’t know, isn’t that scenario very unlikely? Doesn’t the two kind of go hand in hand, sure he could be miserable here — but isn’t it likely that one big factor in that would be that he didn’t perform well?

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I really hope he signs his 7 year contract now and isn't playing a game to sign the 1 year now, then try and get a 8 year contract after the trade deadline (or is it jan 1st?) next season...then we would have him for 9 years total.

I don't want him for 9 years at some crazy price when he is 34. If that's the case then goodbye next trade deadline.

 

[Calad]

If Trouba only wants to sign a 1 year then trade him at the deadline and if he really wants to be here in NY we can resign him in the off season

 

[Hire Sather]

I really hope he signs his 7 year contract now and isn't playing a game to sign the 1 year now, then try and get a 8 year contract after the trade deadline (or is it jan 1st?) next season...then we would have him for 9 years total.

I don't want him for 9 years at some crazy price when he is 34. If that's the case then goodbye next trade deadline.

I have feared this and I don't want him if that's the case

 

[Alluckks]

Edit: Nevermind

Y'all have no patience

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Trouba signing right now could make us more susceptible to a Buchnevich offer sheet, and also limit our trade flexibility

Y'all have no patience

A player cannot receive an offer sheet once he has filed for arbitration

 

[NYRFAN218]

Trouba isn’t getting a contract until Gorton clears some cap space. Like someone else said if we sign Trouba and then try to clear cap we have no leverage in trades

I think this is a factor but at the same time; every team knows we have to clear cap to make this work whether the trades occur now before the RFA's are signed or 3 weeks from now when they're all locked up. Our need to get under isn't really a secret.

 

[Alluckks]

A player cannot receive an offer sheet once he has filed for arbitration

I figured I was probably forgetting something

 

[LiveLongandProspal]

The program on the 1994 Rangers will be airing at 10 PM on NHLN

 

[egelband]

Its not so terribly different from having to flip Yandle for pennies on the dollar because we couldn't move Nash.

Nash had too *much* contract. Kreider, it could be said, has too *little* contact but that won't make him difficult to move. It just limits the return. I would think.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

The program on the 1994 Rangers will be airing at 10 PM on NHLN

Pretty good season

 

[SA16]

Of course it’s not THE plan, but an option? Of course.

I don’t mind the 1 year option much at all. This organization is — obsessed — with giving long term commitments to big names from other places while forcing our home grown kids into short term deals “to prove themselves”.

There is a heck of a downside with giving a kid a bridge deal, a nightmare we have suffered too many times.

But what is the downside of giving Trouba a 1-year deal? There is an upside, if we don’t like him, we don’t have to commit. We can trade him. But what if we like him? Well he won’t make a ton more then than he would make now. It’s not like there is any “risk” of him playing like an 11m D, and really, if he did, that is a downside I am willing to take. But what if we love him, but he don’t want to stick around? I don’t know, isn’t that scenario very unlikely? Doesn’t the two kind of go hand in hand, sure he could be miserable here — but isn’t it likely that one big factor in that would be that he didn’t perform well?

I looked at this recently. The Rangers have never given one of their skaters a seven year deal since the lockout. There’s been several six and then some fives. All the seven year deals they have given out have been to UFAs. Even Lundqvist didn’t get one until his second big deal at age 32.

 

[egelband]

I looked at this recently. The Rangers have never given one of their skaters a seven year deal since the lockout. There’s been several six and then some fives. All the seven year deals they have given out have been to UFAs. Even Lundqvist didn’t get one until his second big deal at age 32.

Yeah. I think it's the fans - many fans, at least - who are obsessed with locking-up these guys.
Management tends to prefer shorter deals, I think. And they go longer when the player has the leverage and interest. And most players want the safety and stability, which makes sense. They're generally the ones with more to lose.

 

[SA16]

Yeah. I think it's the fans - many fans, at least - who are obsessed with locking-up these guys.
Management tends to prefer shorter deals, I think. And they go longer when the player has the leverage and interest. And most players want the safety and stability, which makes sense. They're generally the ones with more to lose.

Oh I think they should lock guys up long term when possible. However they have never done it for max term. Not Callahan Staal Girardi Stepan Zibanejad Kreider Lundqvist etc. and in many cases it’s been a good thing they didn’t but this is a thing many teams do that the Rangers don’t and it does harm them from getting those real big value deals like Josi/MacKinnon for example. In fact if they went 7 years on Staals first contract instead of 5 (which ran out in 14-15) we probably wouldn’t have the issue we have with him know because he surely wouldn’t have got another big deal. Same for Girardi. If they went 7 on him instead of 4 they wouldn’t have had to buy him out. They bought him out 3 years after his 7 year deal ended.

 

[egelband]

Oh I think they should lock guys up long term when possible. However they have never done it for max term. Not Callahan Staal Girardi Stepan Zibanejad Kreider Lundqvist etc. and in many cases it’s been a good thing they didn’t but this is a thing many teams do that the Rangers don’t and it does harm them from getting those real big value deals like Josi/MacKinnon for example. In fact if they went 7 years on Staals first contract instead of 5 (which ran out in 14-15) we probably wouldn’t have the issue we have with him know because he surely wouldn’t have got another big deal. Same for Girardi. If they went 7 on him instead of 4 they wouldn’t have had to buy him out. They bought him out 3 years after his 7 year deal ended.

None of those guys are really max duration guys, in my opinion. Zibanejad would have been a great one to get for seven in hindsight. But for every homerun, there's a Callahan and a Dubinsky and pretty much every other Ranger who came up for a new deal in the past ten years. And they showed they're willing to go seven for Panarin, which seems like a smart move. Trouba has leverage so I'm sure he gets seven but I'd frankly prefer him for four or five. That's all I was saying, the Rangers don't appear obsessed with max term deals.