The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 29,200
- 38,871
Speculation: Roster Building thread - Part XVII - (TDL is March 7th)
- Thread starter Leonardo87
- Start date
-
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
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
The Rangers don't particularly give out a lot of clauses. I think that gets brought up, and I'm talking specifically about people who aren't fans of us, because it's a "lol Rangers" talking point that sounds true.
We have 9 not counting Quick who is a 35+ contract. 8-10 is the going rate. The Hurricanes have 13.
That's the market. If you don't give them out, somebody will.
Right… but we’re supposed to be a destination. And I didn’t ask about the average number of clauses, I asked about why we’re giving NMCs specifically, without getting any negotiating leverage in return.
8-10 is the going rate per team and you have 25 year old Tage Thompson on a 7 something cap hit with a 5 team trade protection while we give Mika an NMC on an 8.5M contract (I know it’s a shite comparison, I’m typing fast).
The point is you’re not at all addressing the fact that teams that are considered less desirable than us use NMCs and clauses in general to drive down AAV and we seem to give full NMC and full AAV. And we’re not talking about general clauses. 5 and 10 team trade protection does not destroy a player’s value the way a full NMC does.
There’s always some contrarian, I’m anti-the-anti-rangers bias angle with some of your posts. Like a special cleverness you think is unique to you and your explanation is so matter of fact - well, actually, we have 9, 8-10 is average.
Great, that wasn’t the question. The question is why are we not getting any leverage? Stutzle and Sanderson are on good contracts with a shit franchise and don’t even have trade protection to veto certain teams. Slavin got a full NMC on his extension but took 6.4M. He easily gets 8M on the open market. Hughes and Hischier are on great contracts in dirty Jerz and just have 10 team protection.
Why do Trochek, Zibanejad, Fox, Panarin, Shesterkin get NMC full control and top dollar? Realistically there wasn’t ever a moment in time where Fox was ranked above Makar yet he got .5M more and a full NMC and Makar doesn’t even have trade protection. I don’t want an answer regarding averages and other teams. I asked a specific question: “If New York City is SUCH a desired place to play, WHY are we constantly giving top dollar AND top trade protection?” It’s a simple question.
Last edited:
Everyone's "model" franchise here, the NJD, have 12.
As you said, it's just the nature of where we are now. I think it's gotten a bit ridiculous where the likes of Erik Haula and Will Borgen are even getting some level of no trade protection but if you want a top guy, they're getting a NMC and it'll taper off to a limited NTC if you're lucky.
But we’re not talking about other franchises, nor total clauses. We’re talking about the “Oh, EVERYONE wants to sign with them!” Rangers and specifically NO MOVEMENT CLAUSES, and WHY we don’t have a single f***ing contract as team friendly as Hughes or Hischier who each barely have 10 team NTCs. Makar has always been viewed above Fox and took 500k less and NO trade protection, meanwhile this was the team Fox forced his way to and the ONLY team he wanted to play for. Shesterkin needed 11.5M to stay and turned down 11M but still got a full NMC. It’s a bargaining tool. We suck at bargaining. Why is this controversial? Oh, because a fan of a different team said it.
KennyWu
Registered User
- Oct 14, 2010
- 1,244
- 2,827
It seems like a lot but I'm not surprised players are asking for it, I don't blame em. Especially a guy who refused to play anywhere else, why would he want to risk being moved elsewhere?
We do have a bit of a reputation in this league especially lately..
We do have a bit of a reputation in this league especially lately..
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Hughes, Hischier, Stutzle, Sanderson, and Thompson were RFA's.
Every guy you mentioned for us was a UFA, except for Fox, and I know you don't want to hear this, but Fox got nowhere near his market value. If Fox hit the market tomorrow, he gets the largest contract for a defenseman in the history of the league.
Ok, New York is a destination, which means lower money. That's fair. It's hard to gauge because salaries went up so quick some time around the pandemic, but I would argue Zibanejad could have gotten more. It was rumored that Panarin could have gotten more. The Trocheck contract is an absolute steal so, idk. Shesterkin had this thing about blowing away any contract for goaltender ever. We gave into it, and you know how I feel about that contract.
As far as a clause goes, the premise is that New York and the Rangers are an attractive destination. Well, then, yeah. They wanna make sure they don't get traded from New York. That tracks with the premise.
Okay, you refuse to play anywhere else and now you’re where you want to be and don’t want to risk being moved. We’ll give you 8.75, maybe 9, same as Makar. How do you end up getting more with FULL protection? This is like negotiation 101 stuff. Shesterkin is the exact same question. And this isn’t even ABOUT the players. Like I’m not picking on those two. I’m picking on management. Shesterkin turned down 11M. Okay boss, choose. You want to be in NY so bad you need a full NMC? It’s 11. You want 11.5? You get a 10 team NTC. Nah, let’s just f*** ourselves and give him both. Now he’s unmovable unless he eventually waives to a team of his choice thus killing his value entirely because he controls his destination for life.
It doesn’t matter what Fox gets in the open market tomorrow, just like it doesn’t matter what Makar would have gotten tomorrow. You can’t answer my question, period (but here’s the thing - you don’t have to! Only Chris Drury should be answering this question and our writers should be asking it. Stop acting like you have all the answers and for god’s sake don’t start white knighting for the organizational management now - you have sacred cows among the players, fine, but THIS team’s management and decision making? You don’t need to defend it nor answer for it). Slavin wasn’t an RFA (to my knowledge). Sweet heart deal. Fox ONLY wants to play here, forced his way here and then got more money than the consensus best young D in the league with full trade protection. You are supposed to negotiate. If you want a guarantee you won’t be moved from your desired destination, we need a concession from you as well. 500k-1M per player adds up, and honestly just not having the NMC is even better because NMC means you can agree to go only one place and now you have zero trade value.
Just admit you can’t answer the question. I don’t even know why this is controversial. How many FULL NMCs is average around the league? We have 6 now that we’ve acquired JT.
Trochek, Zib, JT, Fox, Shesty, Panarin. Please, since ya know, 8-10 is the norm for clauses… please, what is the norm for NMCs?
And WHY are we now defending NYR management? Because we just love f***ing being contrarians. It’s a good goddam point. Why are we handing out NMCs without NEGOTIATING for something in return. Fox not getting 10M or 10.5M when he forced his way to NY and Makar was already getting 9M is supposed to be a win? It doesn’t matter what he’d get today. When the deal was negotiated. We should fist pump that? Boy, we duped Shesty into giving us a sub-12 cap hit by throwing in that full NMC until he’s 37. Victory! Literally, this is just contrarian Bull shit at this point. You’re now defending NYR management, just because playing smartest boys in the room gets your jimmies off.
Again, if NY is so attractive they want to ensure they cannot be moved, sacrifice something in return.
Last edited:
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Fox signed his contract the year after Makar. You don't think he said "hey I'll settle for a little bit more than Makar?" That's more than fair. Dollars inflate as time passes and Fox had a decent argument for being the best defenseman in the league. It's not a f***ing charity. It's more than enough that he basically forced his way here when we didn't draft him. We still have to pay him.
Why Makar got no protection at all is a question for his agent. He has to be the only non-ELC superstar in the league with no protection at all. I'm not particularly interested in harping on some dude's agent getting taken to the cleaners.
What even is the question? Why do the Rangers have the normal amount of contract clauses?
It's not about defending management. There's plenty to pick from to criticize the Rangers. The point you posited just isn't true. If you wanna say Igor and Zibanejad just got bad contracts, everyone would agree with you. Trocheck and Fox signed for pretty good deals.
Fox is tied for the 5th highest paid defenseman in the league, and when the new cap hits, he'll fall out of the top ten.
He signed before Fox did and is signed for a season less than Fox is which is going to supress his AAV. His extension also kicked in post Norris win where the opposite was true for Fox. If he had the benefit of an extra season before he signed his extension, he would have come in at 10+ easily - Timing matters. Considering that he's finished behind Fox in the Norris voiting twice (three times?), it isn't accurate to say that he's always been viewed as "ahead."
IIRC, the Devils inked Hughes to his current contract before he really blew up. It was the same season where he got hurt a few games into the season and had to miss a decent chunk of time. It turned out team friendly, but there was some risk assumed by the NJD. Same goes for Thompson with Buffalo. They've tried to get out ahead of other guys by locking them up before they blow up that haven't worked out (Samuelsson big time, Cozens looks like he may be going down the same path too.) They also had the benefit of a suppressed cap ceiling for the foreseeable future. Now this is a situation where the Rangers could have extended Igor for longer than they did on his current contract (not the one that kicks in next year) for a bit more money and put themselves in a better position 2-3 season from now. They didn't have the space. Thank Jeff Gorton for that.
If you look at most of the NYR NMC's, they're all coming for guys on their UFA contracts with the exception of Fox.
Thats what these guys get and thats the point. Look at the top contracts around the league, they all have NMCs. This isn't an exclusive trait to the Rangers so there is no controversy, it just is. Bad teams have to give them out to decent players to coerce them to sign with them, Good teams have to give them to good players to keep them, etc.
Want fewer NMC's? Stop signing guys when they're about to hit UFA or out of UFA.
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 18,861
- 27,735
I kinda used to be annoyed by all the clauses given out by the Rangers, saying exactly what @LokiDog said: this is supposed to be a destination for players, and thus not taken for granted. But it's just a fact that in a league where everyone is trying to squeeze down the AAV because of the hard cap, clauses are used as bargaining chips.
Ideally, this would be changed in the CBA. Not saying totally eliminate clauses, the PA would never agree to that, but restrict them for maybe two or three first years of a contract?
Ideally, this would be changed in the CBA. Not saying totally eliminate clauses, the PA would never agree to that, but restrict them for maybe two or three first years of a contract?
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Two factors with NMCs, both a little short-sighted.
1) GMs pretty much don't care because they don't think they'll be trying to trade the player anyway. For example, Panarin. There's really been no need to consider trading him to this point. Same for Trocheck.
2) On long-term deals, odds are high the GM won't be around for the end of the contract, so it's no sweat off their backs to give them. Again, look at Panarin. The guy who signed him to the NMC isn't the GM anymore.
If it helps grease the skids to get the guy you want under contract, and considering those two points, why not give NMCs?
1) GMs pretty much don't care because they don't think they'll be trying to trade the player anyway. For example, Panarin. There's really been no need to consider trading him to this point. Same for Trocheck.
2) On long-term deals, odds are high the GM won't be around for the end of the contract, so it's no sweat off their backs to give them. Again, look at Panarin. The guy who signed him to the NMC isn't the GM anymore.
If it helps grease the skids to get the guy you want under contract, and considering those two points, why not give NMCs?
I don't know if it's meaningless. The thrust of my point wasn't about Fox's rating relative to the league but of the relative gap between his rating and his most common partners.
Most of the players on the list are part of a pairing with another player on the list, which I'm sure youre aware of, more or less reinforcing the point.
At a glance the only player I see with a most common partner with a negative defensive rating is Seider.
UnSandvich
Registered User
- Sep 7, 2017
- 5,898
- 9,033
The problem there is, what are you (well really, the owners) giving the PA to accept that? What incentive do they have to agree to that change?
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 18,861
- 27,735
Now you’re just being dishonest in your argument. I asked you to please go see what the average number of FULL NMCs is. You decided we have the average number of clauses, so I asked you to prove your hypothesis with regards to NMCs specifically. I’ll save you the work; we’re tied for most in the NHL. Where Fox’s salary ranks against future salaries is irrelevant. All that matters is the available comps when he signed it and the best argument he had was being AS good as Makar. Great, you can choose between being paid more or getting a full NMC. If you need to be paid more, you can have a 15 team NTC. Or NMC for the first half.
We are clearly not going to agree because it isn’t possible to be as smart and logical as you are. It’s so simple and clear and wonderful. We’re tied with Edmonton, Boston and Toronto for most NMCs. Tied for first, average for the whole league. Same thing.
There really isn’t anything wrong with asking why we are tied for most NMCs on our books when we’re supposed to be such a premier destination for these players. If they want the security of knowing they’ll be here the full 8 years of the contract, they can concede something. As with every aspect of this organization we are extremely soft. You can post another retort, I’m over it. My opinion won’t waiver on this one just because a couple of real bright guys on the internet said so.
UnSandvich
Registered User
- Sep 7, 2017
- 5,898
- 9,033
Owners have already committed to going back to the Olympics. I'm not sure myself what'd be a big enough incentive for the players for them to not balk immediately at that.
That’s my point; when has a NMC squeezed down an AAV for us. We just gave Shesterkin the dumbest goalie contract in the history of hockey with a full NMC until age 37.
Last edited:
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
With all due respect, just because you think the Rangers aren't getting discounts for giving out NMCs, doesn't mean this is true.
Everyone loves to crap on Shesterkin's contract but there were reports about him being able to get more $$$ elsewhere if he really wanted to. I would argue that Trocheck is taking less $$$. I wasn't paying enough attention when Mika signed his contract to know what the going rate for him was but he (at the time) was a 1C. What about Fox? Isn't he on a team friendly deal? JTM was only willing to be traded to the NYR and his AAV is not bad at all for his production. Panarin was offered more from the Islanders if I'm not mistaken. Kreider doesn't have a NMC but signed what has been a very team friendly deal up until this year (and it's still not that bad). Trouba was ass, so I'll give you that but it was pre-Covid and you can't win all of them.
None of us are experts but what really matters is what the player with the NMC could have received elsewhere at the time the contract was signed or where the player was willing to sign for a trade.
I have no idea why you think that supports your argument. I also will blanketly call you a homer if you truly think there’s ever been a sustained stretch of time where Makar was not viewed as better than Fox. The only reason he’s finished behind Fox was missed games. Which everyone knows. So pretty universally considered better (at absolute worst, 100% equal) and HAVING a Norris under his belt is a sound argument for why Fox WITHOUT having a Norris under his belt at the time, got a higher AAV and full NMC? What Fox WOULD have gotten if he signed at a different time is irrelevant. Dahlin is making 11M now. Makar would easily be making 12.5-13M. Is that relevant? Again, everything ruffles the delicate feathers around here. I’m not criticizing Fox or saying he has a bad contract.
I’m criticizing management for not using the NMC protection as a more valuable negotiation chip. I would have hammered your point about Makar HAVING a Norris. This kid just won the Norris and doesn’t have ANY trade protection and you want more money AND a full NMC? Pick one, kid. Fox’s contract may be great value today - that doesn’t mean it was great negotiating at the time it was signed. Why is that hard to understand? Having the most NMCs in the NHL puts you in a shit position because you can’t f***ing trade anyone when they have full control over where they go, if they even waive at all, and so they have you over a barrel value wise. Was Trochek good value? Sure… is he so vital that he needed a full NMC? Would he not have come here if we “only” gave him 20 team trade protection? Caving to Shesterkin was just disgraceful. The combination of AAV and NMC isn’t defensible. My question as to why we have the most NMCs and are “the most desired” place to play, but haven’t squeezed any discounts out of it is valid and you can repeat yourself over and over again, I am not flinching off this.
Boris Zubov
No relation to Sergei, Joe
If that's true, we should've either traded him or let him test the market. Instead we negotiated against ourselves when there wasn't an imminent time crunch. Plus it's set up identically to Mika's deal, with a full NMC & most of the value set up as signing bonuses so there is ZERO chance to buy him out. There is absolutely no defending that contract. None.
KennyWu
Registered User
- Oct 14, 2010
- 1,244
- 2,827
I see what you're saying, and I get it. Just was looking at the player angle as well. For Fox, he also got an extra year taking him to 30 and I believe Makar will be a UFA at 28? Fox was just coming off a Norris trophy season as well..
Shesterkin as you mentioned rejected 11, how do we know he didn't want 12 and 11.5 plus full nmc was the compromise? I just don't think it's a NYR issue is all I'm saying
HonestGabe
Formerly MacTruck
I'm both intrigued and terrified by this deadline.
Feels like a fork in the road moment for the franchise. I think we will be quite active but I am not sure in which way or who we will be targeting
Feels like a fork in the road moment for the franchise. I think we will be quite active but I am not sure in which way or who we will be targeting
Latest posts
-
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Chaos Lurks Beneath the Surface- Latest: Baby Pettersson
-
