Speculation: Trouba Contract Discussion Part II

[surixon]

Why? That would be something to see.

It's a distraction for one. There might be a liability component as well but am not sure. I just know teams have not allowed unsigned RFAS to attend in the past.

 

[Aavco Cup]

If I have your timeline correct, that's a trade after 3 seasons. I'm hoping for more out of him than that. If he's contributing to the team at value, why worry about a NMC. The most recent move like that is Subban, and that wasn't about money or contract rights.

But.. if the Trouba negs continue to go sideways then I expect a trade around or just before your suggestion.

Many players are traded at that point in their career. The team is about to lose leverage in choices of teams to trade with and it is probably when a player has the most value. Subban may not have been about money but it was about his impending NMC. Just a few more days and it would be Subban who dictates where and when he was able to be traded not Bergeron. It's a pressure point.

 

[Aavco Cup]

It's a distraction for one. There might be a liability component as well but am not sure. I just know teams have not allowed unsigned RFAS to attend in the past.

No agent would allow it either. At that point he needs to create pressure and push a deadline.

 

[Unholy goalie]

Many players are traded at that point in their career. The team is about to lose leverage in choices of teams to trade with and it is probably when a player has the most value. Subban may not have been about money but it was about his impending NMC. Just a few more days and it would be Subban who dictates where and when he was able to be traded not Bergeron. It's a pressure point.

It's a pressure point for sure, but I don't think Bergevin was trying to save himself that particular headache.

If teams were so concerned about those NMC's and NTC's, it doesn't make sense as to how those got negotiated in there to begin with. Sure, teams can exploit trade loopholes or sign players longer than they truly want them for, but these tactics are for when players don't turn out as expected. That's why Subban's case is a bit exceptional. The Habs should arguably have been happy to honour the rest of his contract, even with a NMC.

If you think trading players away before NMC's is quid pro quo, then you must favour a bridge deal like Johansen's.

 

[Aavco Cup]

It's a pressure point for sure, but I don't think Bergevin was trying to save himself that particular headache.

If teams were so concerned about those NMC's and NTC's, it doesn't make sense as to how those got negotiated in there to begin with. Sure, teams can exploit trade loopholes or sign players longer than they truly want them for, but these tactics are for when players don't turn out as expected. That's why Subban's case is a bit exceptional. The Habs should arguably have been happy to honour the rest of his contract, even with a NMC.

If you think trading players away before NMC's is quid pro quo, then you must favour a bridge deal like Johansen's.

Absolutely not. that was a terrible contract for Columbus. What makes you think I favour it?

BTW I never said every player would be traded at that point, only that if a team decides trade the player that seems to be a pressure point that forces the issue.

I think the Jets will trade Trouba at some point....just not right now

 

[drumzan]

If I continued my predicted timeline it would go like this:

Trouba traded at the 2020 draft just days before his NMC comes into effect and allowing the acquiring team to nullify it. So I also believe the Jets will trade Trouba at some point......just a bit later than some others do.

BTW no RFA player will report to training camp unless they are under contract. Trouba included.

Maybe Winnipeg hosts the 2020 draft.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

If I have your timeline correct, that's a trade after 3 seasons. I'm hoping for more out of him than that. If he's contributing to the team at value, why worry about a NMC. The most recent move like that is Subban, and that wasn't about money or contract rights.

But.. if the Trouba negs continue to go sideways then I expect a trade around or just before your suggestion.

Then why worry about it? That's a long way in the future and the assumption must be that we will get full value in return. There is no reason we would trade him for less. So just not a problem.

 

[surixon]

Maybe Winnipeg hosts the 2020 draft.

I wouldn't be surprised to see us host one around that time as TN square should be complete by then.

 

[Unholy goalie]

Absolutely not. that was a terrible contract for Columbus. What makes you think I favour it?

BTW I never said every player would be traded at that point, only that if a team decides trade the player that seems to be a pressure point that forces the issue.

I think the Jets will trade Trouba at some point....just not right now

Well let's not gloss over the fact that you use terms like "many", "mostly", and "we see it all the time". Specifically, you said many players get traded around the time of their NMC, and I felt that was an over generalisation. Feel free to clarify what you mean by "many" if I had it wrong. My point was just that organisations don't sign contracts with NMC's with the intention of bailing just before they kick in. I've already agreed with you that when a NMC comes up it forces the organisation to decide whether they want to live with it or move the player.

I bring up Johansen because you seem to be implying that the Jets are likely to trade Trouba in about 3 seasons when a possible NMC comes into effect or when a player has the most value. If that's your bet, you'd be better off with a Johansen-like bridge instead of a long-term deal, for two reasons.
First is that it is less expensive. Recall that Johansen was asking for 12 or 13M over two years. Columbus ended up signing him to a 3 year 3M/3M/6M deal. So Columbus gets him at the price they want while they dangle a 6M carrot in that 3rd year. Then lo and behold they trade him after the second year to someone who thinks he's pretty close to that 6M AAV mark. Columbus gets high value return in Jones while never having to pay Johansen his full value. They also had more cap space to work with for those two years.
Second is that you also have less risk in the future if the asset sours. As soon as you sign through to UFA, you risk losing the asset for nothing and his value as a trade asset declines sharply the closer you get to the end of the contract. Columbus could have let Johansen's contract expire and he would still have some trade value being an RFA. There's also the possibility that the player doesn't develop as expected or suffers some kind of injury that prevents him from playing to his potential, or well below his contract value. At that point teams look at buyouts.
So if you have the notion that Trouba is going to get moved in a few years, you should favour a bridge deal and one that get played out somewhat like Johansen's where you trade for high value without paying up front for it, and mitigate any future risks by terminating within RFA years.

 

[drumzan]

Anybody hear Dreger interview on H&L? Curious if he had anything of substance to say RE: Trouba.

 

[Whileee]

Anybody hear Dreger interview on H&L? Curious if he had anything of substance to say RE: Trouba.

I posted in another thread... He knows nothing. Lawless knows nothing. Both say that the camps are completely silent. So much for the idea that Lawless has a line to Trouba's agent. He told Dreger to let them know if he hears anything.

 

[Unholy goalie]

Then why worry about it? That's a long way in the future and the assumption must be that we will get full value in return. There is no reason we would trade him for less. So just not a problem.

We might get full value (maybe more, maybe less), but I'm less convinced that we would have our organisational needs met. If we're trading Trouba because he's going to make negotiations difficult again, or that he wants out of Winnipeg, even though he is at the top of his game, then how do we fill his absence in a trade? Who is going to give up an equally good RHD for Trouba under that trade context? We might be able to get full value in other pieces and then try to parlay that into a secondary trade for a RHD, but that's easier said than done. Ultimately we very likely lose depth at that position.

Now without knowing the specifics of how the negotiations are currently going, I can't say if this could even be avoided. I think we're all assuming Overhardt is the one being difficult here, but if Chevy could get it done right now with something like 6 years x 5.5M AAV then that's a shame. I even think something like 8x6 would be great. Point is, if splitting hairs prevents us from a long term deal, and lands us in the scenario you say we shouldn't worry about, then I think it is certainly worth maintaining a healthy dose of criticism.

 

[TheGovernment]

We might get full value (maybe more, maybe less), but I'm less convinced that we would have our organisational needs met. If we're trading Trouba because he's going to make negotiations difficult again, or that he wants out of Winnipeg, even though he is at the top of his game, then how do we fill his absence in a trade? Who is going to give up an equally good RHD for Trouba under that trade context? We might be able to get full value in other pieces and then try to parlay that into a secondary trade for a RHD, but that's easier said than done. Ultimately we very likely lose depth at that position.

Now without knowing the specifics of how the negotiations are currently going, I can't say if this could even be avoided. I think we're all assuming Overhardt is the one being difficult here, but if Chevy could get it done right now with something like 6 years x 5.5M AAV then that's a shame. I even think something like 8x6 would be great. Point is, if splitting hairs prevents us from a long term deal, and lands us in the scenario you say we shouldn't worry about, then I think it is certainly worth maintaining a healthy dose of criticism.

If Trouba is playing at the top of his game right now, then trade away!

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

We might get full value (maybe more, maybe less), but I'm less convinced that we would have our organisational needs met. If we're trading Trouba because he's going to make negotiations difficult again, or that he wants out of Winnipeg, even though he is at the top of his game, then how do we fill his absence in a trade? Who is going to give up an equally good RHD for Trouba under that trade context? We might be able to get full value in other pieces and then try to parlay that into a secondary trade for a RHD, but that's easier said than done. Ultimately we very likely lose depth at that position.

Now without knowing the specifics of how the negotiations are currently going, I can't say if this could even be avoided. I think we're all assuming Overhardt is the one being difficult here, but if Chevy could get it done right now with something like 6 years x 5.5M AAV then that's a shame. I even think something like 8x6 would be great. Point is, if splitting hairs prevents us from a long term deal, and lands us in the scenario you say we shouldn't worry about, then I think it is certainly worth maintaining a healthy dose of criticism.

You seem to be assuming some kind of forced trade. Why? We are talking about half way through his next contract. Are we really worrying about the next negotiation at that point? We have no idea what organizational needs will be by then. Things change too much in 3 years. It just isn't anything to worry about so far in advance. If they decide to trade Trouba in 3 years it will be because they like the trade more than they like keeping him.

 

[drumzan]

I posted in another thread... He knows nothing. Lawless knows nothing. Both say that the camps are completely silent. So much for the idea that Lawless has a line to Trouba's agent. He told Dreger to let them know if he hears anything.

Thank you Whileee.

 

[surixon]

I posted in another thread... He knows nothing. Lawless knows nothing. Both say that the camps are completely silent. So much for the idea that Lawless has a line to Trouba's agent. He told Dreger to let them know if he hears anything.

So the media is finally admitting that they have been pulling stuff out of thin air with regards to this....

Why am I not surprised!

 

[Aavco Cup]

Well let's not gloss over the fact that you use terms like "many", "mostly", and "we see it all the time". Specifically, you said many players get traded around the time of their NMC, and I felt that was an over generalisation. Feel free to clarify what you mean by "many" if I had it wrong. My point was just that organisations don't sign contracts with NMC's with the intention of bailing just before they kick in. I've already agreed with you that when a NMC comes up it forces the organisation to decide whether they want to live with it or move the player.

I bring up Johansen because you seem to be implying that the Jets are likely to trade Trouba in about 3 seasons when a possible NMC comes into effect or when a player has the most value. If that's your bet, you'd be better off with a Johansen-like bridge instead of a long-term deal, for two reasons.
First is that it is less expensive. Recall that Johansen was asking for 12 or 13M over two years. Columbus ended up signing him to a 3 year 3M/3M/6M deal. So Columbus gets him at the price they want while they dangle a 6M carrot in that 3rd year. Then lo and behold they trade him after the second year to someone who thinks he's pretty close to that 6M AAV mark. Columbus gets high value return in Jones while never having to pay Johansen his full value. They also had more cap space to work with for those two years.
Second is that you also have less risk in the future if the asset sours. As soon as you sign through to UFA, you risk losing the asset for nothing and his value as a trade asset declines sharply the closer you get to the end of the contract. Columbus could have let Johansen's contract expire and he would still have some trade value being an RFA. There's also the possibility that the player doesn't develop as expected or suffers some kind of injury that prevents him from playing to his potential, or well below his contract value. At that point teams look at buyouts.
So if you have the notion that Trouba is going to get moved in a few years, you should favour a bridge deal and one that get played out somewhat like Johansen's where you trade for high value without paying up front for it, and mitigate any future risks by terminating within RFA years.

By many I meant more than one or two. You're reading too much into it. It happens often enough that it's not an unreasonable prediction.

It's just a prediction. I may be wrong, I may be right.

I disagree that a 3 yr bridge deal is advantageous in any way except for the player. In a trade a player has more value with term provided he isn't overpaid.

The trouble with Johansen's bridge deal was the $6M final year salary. That means a $6M QO and one year to UFA. In theory he could just sign his QO if he wants to be elsewhere. Most other top 6 RFA's want and deserve a raise from their QO.

 

[ps241]

By many I meant more than one or two. You're reading too much into it. It happens often enough that it's not an unreasonable prediction.

It's just a prediction. I may be wrong, I may be right.

I disagree that a 3 yr bridge deal is advantageous in any way except for the player. In a trade a player has more value with term provided he isn't overpaid.

The trouble with Johansen's bridge deal was the $6M final year salary. That means a $6M QO and one year to UFA. In theory he could just sign his QO if he wants to be elsewhere. Most other top 6 RFA's want and deserve a raise from their QO.

I think it was reported Columbus ownership may have pressured JD and co into that deal. As I recall Davidson was not happy.

 

[Unholy goalie]

By many I meant more than one or two. You're reading too much into it. It happens often enough that it's not an unreasonable prediction.

It's just a prediction. I may be wrong, I may be right.

I disagree that a 3 yr bridge deal is advantageous in any way except for the player. In a trade a player has more value with term provided he isn't overpaid.

The trouble with Johansen's bridge deal was the $6M final year salary. That means a $6M QO and one year to UFA. In theory he could just sign his QO if he wants to be elsewhere. Most other top 6 RFA's want and deserve a raise from their QO.

I could agree with you if you're talking about players being traded when they are at their peak or highest value. The whole notion, however, that it is common for teams to trade as a means to avoid NMC or NTC/M-NTC is baseless.

Johansen's bridge was well executed by the Blue Jackets, imo. Consider the context. He was making negotiations difficult, and was refusing to commit to Columbus long term. So the Blue Jackets work a 3 year bridge which in looking at it signals that they had every intention to move him before it expired. The thing is that, statistically, he was pretty much already playing like a 6M player for the first two years of that contract. Have a look at the comparables in his salary range to see what I mean. Columbus got him at half the price, then traded him for near equal value knowing that he'd probably do something like you suggested (sign his QO or create another difficult negotiation).

I think the Jets could learn from this in a number of ways. Most importantly is that if you have a player who is playing at a high level, you have a better chance of retaining him long-term if you pay him close to his value up front. I'm not sure what Trouba's ask is, but if it's somewhere around 6M AAV then the closest comparable in age/salary would be Hamilton. Why not sign Trouba to something similar at 6x5.75? Hamilton is better in shot suppression and playmaking, but not by a large margin. How much of that gap could be narrowed with less ES time with Stu. Or.. They could do a shorter deal.. like a three year bridge which keeps him RFA (although with arb rights) and graduate his pay so you save a little now and pay full value later while maximizing UFA years. If they don't see much of a future after that bridge they can always trade before/during that final year knowing they will have gotten a good player at a discount and will likely get full value in a trade. I don't like that move because of the hole it can leave in organisational depth, despite a near full value return (see Columbus' Centre depth). But that could just be a rob Paul to pay Peter kind of situation that irons itself out eventually.

In our case with Trouba, I'm hoping that Chevy is standing pat on getting a long term deal. If they do land on a bridge then I hope it does in fact play out similarly to Johansen so that the Jets pay minimal amount while also getting a good return when it's time for Trouba to go.

 

[Unholy goalie]

I think it was reported Columbus ownership may have pressured JD and co into that deal. As I recall Davidson was not happy.

That makes sense if Davidson was trying for a longer term deal at a higher AAV than what they settled on in the bridge deal. Otherwise it seems like they got a good deal on Johansen for the two years he was there after resigning.

 

[Aavco Cup]

I could agree with you if you're talking about players being traded when they are at their peak or highest value. The whole notion, however, that it is common for teams to trade as a means to avoid NMC or NTC/M-NTC is baseless.

Johansen's bridge was well executed by the Blue Jackets, imo. Consider the context. He was making negotiations difficult, and was refusing to commit to Columbus long term. So the Blue Jackets work a 3 year bridge which in looking at it signals that they had every intention to move him before it expired. The thing is that, statistically, he was pretty much already playing like a 6M player for the first two years of that contract. Have a look at the comparables in his salary range to see what I mean. Columbus got him at half the price, then traded him for near equal value knowing that he'd probably do something like you suggested (sign his QO or create another difficult negotiation).

I think the Jets could learn from this in a number of ways. Most importantly is that if you have a player who is playing at a high level, you have a better chance of retaining him long-term if you pay him close to his value up front. I'm not sure what Trouba's ask is, but if it's somewhere around 6M AAV then the closest comparable in age/salary would be Hamilton. Why not sign Trouba to something similar at 6x5.75? Hamilton is better in shot suppression and playmaking, but not by a large margin. How much of that gap could be narrowed with less ES time with Stu. Or.. They could do a shorter deal.. like a three year bridge which keeps him RFA (although with arb rights) and graduate his pay so you save a little now and pay full value later while maximizing UFA years. If they don't see much of a future after that bridge they can always trade before/during that final year knowing they will have gotten a good player at a discount and will likely get full value in a trade. I don't like that move because of the hole it can leave in organisational depth, despite a near full value return (see Columbus' Centre depth). But that could just be a rob Paul to pay Peter kind of situation that irons itself out eventually.

In our case with Trouba, I'm hoping that Chevy is standing pat on getting a long term deal. If they do land on a bridge then I hope it does in fact play out similarly to Johansen so that the Jets pay minimal amount while also getting a good return when it's time for Trouba to go.

You're missing the point. They aren't trying to avoid the NTC/NMC. That is not the intention. It just gets much harder to make a trade once it comes into effect. It limits the options the trading team has. That's why it's a presssure point.

I also prefer a long term deal with Trouba now. I just think a bridge is more likely, that is all.

 

[ps241]

That makes sense if Davidson was trying for a longer term deal at a higher AAV than what they settled on in the bridge deal. Otherwise it seems like they got a good deal on Johansen for the two years he was there after resigning.

I have to admit Columbus did maximize value for services with RyJo. Also found a willing trade partner to get good value for the asset.

 

[ps241]

Anybody hear Dreger interview on H&L? Curious if he had anything of substance to say RE: Trouba.

This was one thing that I took notice of:

Chris Nichols
‏@NicholsOnHockey
Dreger: "I've been told by both parties here that Jacob Trouba is absolutely willing to sign and stay in Winnipeg." #NHLJets 1290

 

[sully1410]

This was one thing that I took notice of:

Well that's good news. 8 year deal coming in?

No wait...hear me out. I think a six year deal would have been done already. There is plenty of comparables for both that and a bridge contract...but there isn't really any for an eight year deal. Hence th hold up.

It kinda makes sense...

 

[Whileee]

Well that's good news. 8 year deal coming in?

No wait...hear me out. I think a six year deal would have been done already. There is plenty of comparables for both that and a bridge contract...but there isn't really any for an eight year deal. Hence th hold up.

It kinda makes sense...

That's what I've been saying for a few weeks. I think that Lindholm, Risto and Trouba and their respective teams might be trying to hammer out 7 or 8 year deals, but are having a hard time settling on the AAV. One of the dominoes probably needs to fall to start to set the market. I highly doubt that it will be Trouba, given the reputation that Chevy and Trouba's agent have for grinding out negotiations.