I think when it comes to "market value", we tend to look at few of the examples where teams have handed out bigger contracts and say "that's the new market value for a player of that caliber", when in fact they are mostly outliers.
12.5 x8 would make me vomit, post on here 5 mins after that this is insane, give me nightmares of the Hank years, and imo will seal the deal on the Rangers NOT winning a cup for another decade.
1-2 guys who exceed expectations or clutch role players will be the determining factor if the Rangers can win a Cup during Shesterkin's next contract.
That’s not cherry picking. It’s universal. As far as a contract goes, what becomes convenient or inconvenient to either party is irrelevant to the the other party. It’s the very reason a contract is signed. And it goes both ways. What has become inconvenient to NYR, the fact that Trouba is underperforming, is irrelevant to Trouba and his desire to stay. It’s the very antithesis of cherry picking.
I don't buy this. Winnipeg should be the ones overpaying to keep guys from leaving. That market is the least popular with all NHL players in every poll I've read when players are asked about it. Plus Canadian taxes are higher than NYC taxes, without mentioning how NYC is among the most desirable places to play.
Incompetence? But give me examples of who you're referring to.
Looking at total value is kind of pointless. He can invest that 1.5 extra over 7 years and have a hell of a lot more $ than 11m in the 8th year
Lundqvist, Trouba, Richards, Redden, MSL trade, etc. You can go all the way to Holik.
Honestly, I have no issue with what either "side" has done or anyone on the boards who takes one side. It is a business; players, management, and fans know that. I just felt the need to defend Trouba for being a family man first, a hockey player second, and a Ranger third. As fans, we tend to put our own loyalties first. Players come and go, yet we fans stick around, year after year, decade after decade. This is an unfortunate situation for everyone involved. In an odd way, during the season, players become part of my "extended family." I care about them not just as players but as people. Players might be genetically gifted in ways that we mere "mortals" can only fantasize about. But when it comes to emotions and "everyday life" they are no different than any of us. Sure I understand that the Rangers must do what they think is best for the team. It is when fans criticize players for doing the same, that I have an issue. The whole Trouba saga, of a hockey player having a wife who is a doctor, of doing her residency in NYC, of structuring his career in a way that takes into account his wife's career is fascinating and has been a joy to watch. So again, no issue or problem with you or anyone else: we are all passionate about the team we love and want the best for them. I just felt that the conversation was one-sided and needed someone to defend Trouba who, despite his deteriorating play and the weight of his contract, is a player that I like.
It's all about the timing, how close to UFA those guts were, and he's using Lundqvist as a measuring stick.
You can throw Saros into that mix as well. 7.75M, starting at the same time Shesty's new contract should kick in. Both born in 1995. And I think Saros belongs to that elite tier of NHL goalies, which includes like 6 or 7 goalies.
Both Hellebucyk and Sorkin signed deals during the Covid-Cap Era. We're out of that now. That's why the Rangers are in the situation they're in.
All of this falls under incompetence. The Rangers have a horrible team history for a reason, bad management.
At some point you have to consider the city and cost of living. Other than Craig Patrick, what GM didn't overpay?
They still signed it before the flat cap ended which was this June. The timing. In the words of the great Thunderbolt Patterson, "if I only had the time, if I only....ooooooooh"
The cost of living is certainly an issue, but playing for a marquis franchise balances that out somewhat. Especially in the comparison of a market such as Winnipeg.
