When does Zibanejad sign, and for how much?

[Off Sides]

It also depends on what they'd spend that cap space on if they do not just buy up extra UFA years of Zbad with it.

If they are going to spend it on stuff like Glass, buyouts of other players, they may as well just use that extra space on what could be a good contract even if it's a bit of an over payment.

 

[Matz03]

It also depends on what they'd spend that cap space on if they do not just buy up extra UFA years of Zbad with it.

If they are going to spend it on stuff like Glass, buyouts of other players, they may as well just use that extra space on what could be a good contract even if it's a bit of an over payment.

No that should not be a concern in deciding which young players to lock up early. plus how do you know how much cap space you have in 6 years when you have 2 players signed to that point. Cap space is flexibility, sometimes a good depth player can be overpaid (Grabner, BBoyle, as examples), sometimes it's a waiver or taking on a bad contract in return for assets. Trade deadline room etc. How about stick to not signing bad players because they are bad players, that because there is no room to sign them.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I disagree here, if the league were to change the rules to limit these long deals, that's one thing. But right now you have to be smart about your cap and minimize paying near UFA $ to players after bridge deals. There definitely isn't a single policy that should be applied to all. Zib is a 24 yo center that produces at 2C levels, righty shot, he's a very valuable asset you definitely look to lock up 5-6 years now. Once guys get into their mid 20's and up, then 3-4 deals make more sense. Skjei is another example you lockup to 6 year deal ala McDonagh even this summer if possible.

The front office should be spending a lot of time analyzing young players on ELC's or bride deals, and be locking certain players that could identify as core pieces to long terms deals sooner. If they do their job they can get max value and save $cap dollars locking up players through their prime. They must go away from paying older players for prior success, this is old way of thinking that doesn't work in a cap system. Centers and D have most value and can be hardest to replace, that's a good start in identifying who should be locked up early.

McDonagh's deal was a smart move, Stepan's deal should've been identical at that time, the smart people around here who wanted that are now proven right. Skjei is a key example. Zib is definitely another candidate to lock up early and for long.

McD was a injury free guy who was already in the top 10 in Norris voting when he signed his deal. Zib is not at his level and Zib has had concussion and leg injuries. McD's deal worked out well but for every 6 year plus deal that works out well I can show you at least 2 that did not work out well. 5 years takes Zib to age 29. We are talking about 1 year and we can decide at age 29 if we made the right decision. I think the risk far outweighs the reward on these 6 plus year deals. Steps deal just got traded in part because we did not want him for the last 4 years of his 6 year deal.

 

[RangerBoy]

This should be so complicated......

 

[RangerBoy]

The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow morning. No real rush to get a contract signed until then.

 

[JimmyG89]

McD was a injury free guy who was already in the top 10 in Norris voting when he signed his deal. Zib is not at his level and Zib has had concussion and leg injuries. McD's deal worked out well but for every 6 year plus deal that works out well I can show you at least 2 that did not work out well. 5 years takes Zib to age 29. We are talking about 1 year and we can decide at age 29 if we made the right decision. I think the risk far outweighs the reward on these 6 plus year deals. Steps deal just got traded in part because we did not want him for the last 4 years of his 6 year deal.

Stepan got traded because he sat in the middle in terms of value and need/want on the team.

Staal and Girardi are untradable. Hank isn't getting traded. Nash has 1 year left at 7.8 and has little value. Mcdonagh isn't getting traded at 4.7 per. Same for Kreider and Zuke.

He literally was the only piece they'd move to gain the cap space they wanted AND get substantial value in return. The year before was Brassard.

The team can say as they please that they weren't happy with his contract for the next 4 years, but the reality is they aren't/weren't happy with Staal and Girardi deals either, but you cannot get out from under those without penalty. They could with Stepan and did. Same for Brassard.

On Zib, he should get 5 years. No concerns with his game. He can skate, has size and skill.Over the next 5 years, if he slows down, his size and skill can make up for it.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Stepan got traded because he sat in the middle in terms of value and need/want on the team.

Staal and Girardi are untradable. Hank isn't getting traded. Nash has 1 year left at 7.8 and has little value. Mcdonagh isn't getting traded at 4.7 per. Same for Kreider and Zuke.

He literally was the only piece they'd move to gain the cap space they wanted AND get substantial value in return. The year before was Brassard.

The team can say as they please that they weren't happy with his contract for the next 4 years, but the reality is they aren't/weren't happy with Staal and Girardi deals either, but you cannot get out from under those without penalty. They could with Stepan and did. Same for Brassard.

On Zib, he should get 5 years. No concerns with his game. He can skate, has size and skill.Over the next 5 years, if he slows down, his size and skill can make up for it.

Brassard was on a 5 year deal. I do think Steps contract played a major role in his being moved. We did not get a similar player in return. I believe they may have felt like they needed to get out of it before it was too late and he became another Staal situation.

Nobody can predict the next 5 years but I have said all along I'm okay with 4-5 year deals. I just say we should only reserve 6 year plus deals for elite players without significant injuries. The risk of the 6 year plus deals is greater than the reward in my opinion for us and other teams as well.

 

[Matz03]

McD was a injury free guy who was already in the top 10 in Norris voting when he signed his deal. Zib is not at his level and Zib has had concussion and leg injuries. McD's deal worked out well but for every 6 year plus deal that works out well I can show you at least 2 that did not work out well. 5 years takes Zib to age 29. We are talking about 1 year and we can decide at age 29 if we made the right decision. I think the risk far outweighs the reward on these 6 plus year deals. Steps deal just got traded in part because we did not want him for the last 4 years of his 6 year deal.

Zib broke his leg on a freak crash into the boards, he doesn't have any injury concerns. He played 80, 81 and 75 games season before coming here. There are no injury concerns here. To me 5-6 year deal is the way to go for Mike, I'd prefer 6 but 5 is fine. It's the 3-4 year deals I'd avoid with him. Now if he was a year older, different story and you do go shorter then.

It's irrelevant how many 6 year deals don't workout around the league, the front office should be looking at all possible scenarios very carefully in deciding who gets such deals. Not have some blanket concrete policy of only bridge deals for forwards, or no deals over 4 for everyone. That would just be stubborn and stupid.

Do you think Stepan would still be here if he's on a $4.7m deal with two years to go? What about Haglin, if we signed him to similar dealst that Nashville hands out to young core bottom 6 guys. What if we signed Staal to a longer term deal when his bridge deal was up? 6 instead of 5, good chance the Rangers don't re-up him again after that. They would've seen the regression in his game and been able to decide one year later. Same case for Girardi too, could've re-upped him for 3-4 year instead of 2, then a huge UFA like contract when that was up.

All I'm saying is the front office needs to be a lot smarter and look down the line. D, righty D are expensive as UFA's and not much cheaper coming off bridge deals. Top 6 centers, same story. Consider all the factors when deciding, don't be scared off by bad contracts someone else gave out that didn't work out. Do your own homework.

 

[MisterUnspoken]

Still at 4 years x 5.2m

Didn't Gorton say we didn't want long term deals? 4 years is plenty. Mika is a pretty decent player but not someone to commit long term to. You should always give your team flexibility unless that player is a cornerstone type.

Also as soon as this is a done deal Staal needs to be bought out.

 

[Griffinbw]

This should be so complicated......

That article was just.... eye opening

 

[GordonGecko]

That article was just.... eye opening

The takeaway is that Zib wants a payday and the Rangers like to negotiate at the last hour. Nothing new for me in there

 

[nyr2k2]

I also don't think the Rangers "shortchanged" Brassard in their offer. I think their offer was pretty standard given the circumstances. The difference between what the Rangers submitted and what Zibanejad submitted was pretty close. For example, the difference between the asks of Pittsburgh and Dumoulin was basically twice the difference between the Rangers and Z.

 

[TheTakedown]

He wants what, $5.2M for 1 year, and then hopes to get a $6M/6Y deal after that, right?

That would be a total of $41.2M... However he also is taking an injury/down year risk, so the Rangers will probably compromise with a $5.7M/6Y Right Now...

It's more than I wanted but it's doable.

If that's what happens then they are absolutely buying out Staal. They're going to need the cap space

 

[nyr2k2]

He's asking for $5.35 in arbitration, but he knows he won't get that.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Zib broke his leg on a freak crash into the boards, he doesn't have any injury concerns. He played 80, 81 and 75 games season before coming here. There are no injury concerns here. To me 5-6 year deal is the way to go for Mike, I'd prefer 6 but 5 is fine. It's the 3-4 year deals I'd avoid with him. Now if he was a year older, different story and you do go shorter then.

It's irrelevant how many 6 year deals don't workout around the league, the front office should be looking at all possible scenarios very carefully in deciding who gets such deals. Not have some blanket concrete policy of only bridge deals for forwards, or no deals over 4 for everyone. That would just be stubborn and stupid.

Do you think Stepan would still be here if he's on a $4.7m deal with two years to go? What about Haglin, if we signed him to similar dealst that Nashville hands out to young core bottom 6 guys. What if we signed Staal to a longer term deal when his bridge deal was up? 6 instead of 5, good chance the Rangers don't re-up him again after that. They would've seen the regression in his game and been able to decide one year later. Same case for Girardi too, could've re-upped him for 3-4 year instead of 2, then a huge UFA like contract when that was up.

All I'm saying is the front office needs to be a lot smarter and look down the line. D, righty D are expensive as UFA's and not much cheaper coming off bridge deals. Top 6 centers, same story. Consider all the factors when deciding, don't be scared off by bad contracts someone else gave out that didn't work out. Do your own homework.

Zibs also had concussion on a major ugly hit and then a possible (not confirmed) minor concussion. Hopefully he never has another but they are cumulative so I would not harp on it but also not ignore it.

A 5 year deal is not a bridge deal. 5 years used to be thought of as a long term deal. There is no reason we have to sign non elite players to 6 year deals. Zibs will be around 24 and half when our next season starts. He will be 29 and change when a 5 year deal ends. 5 years will give us plenty of time in his prime and then we can evaluate if we should resign him at that time. I like Zibs. I want him here but 5 years is my max for non elite players.

 

[Matz03]

Zibs also had concussion on a major ugly hit and then a possible (not confirmed) minor concussion. Hopefully he never has another but they are cumulative so I would not harp on it but also not ignore it.

A 5 year deal is not a bridge deal. 5 years used to be thought of as a long term deal. There is no reason we have to sign non elite players to 6 year deals. Zibs will be around 24 and half when our next season starts. He will be 29 and change when a 5 year deal ends. 5 years will give us plenty of time in his prime and then we can evaluate if we should resign him at that time. I like Zibs. I want him here but 5 years is my max for non elite players.

I think McDonagh also had an unconfirmed concussion after skaing head first into the boards trying to get off the ice. Like I said above, 5 year deals for Zib is fine, I'm not arguing that. But you brought up the "risk" of long term deals, I addressed the other side of it and the lost opportunity of not resigning players to longer term when they had the chance. Stepan, Staal, Haglin, Girardi. There is a place for bridge deals, there is a place for 5-6 year deals, there is a place for 3-4 year deals. Your blanket "elite players only" thinking is an excuse to not do your due diligence on a case by case basis. Lots of variables in choosing the route to go, but the goal should be to lock up young players for prime years. Not paying near UFA $ to re-up them, having the flexibility to monitor their later years of the deal and not re-upping older players on the down turn (Staal, Girardi).

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think McDonagh also had an unconfirmed concussion after skaing head first into the boards trying to get off the ice. Like I said above, 5 year deals for Zib is fine, I'm not arguing that. But you brought up the "risk" of long term deals, I addressed the other side of it and the lost opportunity of not resigning players to longer term when they had the chance. Stepan, Staal, Haglin, Girardi. There is a place for bridge deals, there is a place for 5-6 year deals, there is a place for 3-4 year deals. Your blanket "elite players only" thinking is an excuse to not do your due diligence on a case by case basis. Lots of variables in choosing the route to go, but the goal should be to lock up young players for prime years. Not paying near UFA $ to re-up them, having the flexibility to monitor their later years of the deal and not re-upping older players on the down turn (Staal, Girardi).

Call it what you want it (not doing my homework, not doing my due diligence) even if it is a mild insult. I'm glad we did not sign Hags to a 6 year deal and he is one of my fave players ever. He was traded months after he signed his deal with the Ducks and now left exposed in the expansion draft. I believe McD's concussion came after he signed his deal in 2013. A 5 year deal is a long term deal. We already knew Girardi was on the downturn at age 29/30 so there was no reason to sign him to that deal. A 5 year deal for Zibs puts him close to 30 by his next season. I have no problem having him for 5 years and then evaluating at that time. Very few players stay here for 6 years or more. People were worried about Steps deal before the trade. People complain about Lundys deal. Nash has not produced for us lately. I think 5 years is plenty and I suspect Gorton feels the same way.

 

[Matz03]

Call it what you want it (not doing my homework, not doing my due diligence) even if it is a mild insult. I'm glad we did not sign Hags to a 6 year deal and he is one of my fave players ever. He was traded months after he signed his deal with the Ducks and now left exposed in the expansion draft. I believe McD's concussion came after he signed his deal in 2013. A 5 year deal is a long term deal. We already knew Girardi was on the downturn so there was no reason to sign him to that deal. A 5 year deal for Zibs puts him close to 30 by his next season. I have no problem having him for 5 years and then evaluating at that time. Very few players stay here for 6 years or more. People were worried about Steps deal before the trade. People complain about Lundys deal. Nash has not produced for us lately. I think 5 years is plenty and I suspect Gorton feels the same way.

The due diligence comment is not meant as an insult, to me this is the job of the front office and what they get paid for. They should consider the many variable I previously listed, and many more I didn't think of. I just believe they shouldn't constrain themselves for philosophical or principal reasons.

5 year deal is good for Zib, 6 years wouldn't be terrible either. I'm not debating that.

Regarding Haglin, I don't think for a second he was left unprotected because he isn't a good player. Lots of good players got exposed including Lindberg, Raanta by us. Sometimes role players fit a system better than on other teams, they are worth more for one team and less on another.

Nashville is killing it with their resignings, they've been doing that for a few years. Do you think they regret Josi, Ekholm, Ellis all locked up thru their prime? Same case for many of their young forwards now too. Sometimes you just need to take a page out of someone else's playbook.

 

[NickyFotiu]

The due diligence comment is not meant as an insult, to me this is the job of the front office and what they get paid for. They should consider the many variable I previously listed, and many more I didn't think of. I just believe they shouldn't constrain themselves for philosophical or principal reasons.

5 year deal is good for Zib, 6 years wouldn't be terrible either. I'm not debating that.

Regarding Haglin, I don't think for a second he was left unprotected because he isn't a good player. Lots of good players got exposed including Lindberg, Raanta by us. Sometimes role players fit a system better than on other teams, they are worth more for one team and less on another.

Nashville is killing it with their resignings, they've been doing that for a few years. Do you think they regret Josi, Ekholm, Ellis all locked up thru their prime? Same case for many of their young forwards now too. Sometimes you just need to take a page out of someone else's playbook.

Few people like Hags more than me but he was left unprotected because he is not producing up to his contract. There was little risk Vegas would take him but if they did Pitt may have felt it was for the best. He was a healthy scratch in the finals.

The Panthers made it to the finals but had a worse record than we did so I'm not looking at them as definitive experts on signings.

Josi is 26 and his contract ends at 29. A 5 year deal takes Zibs to 29.

Ekholm is 26. Lets revisit this when he is 30 with 2 more years left.

Ellis signed a 5 year deal just as I have been speaking about with Zibs except Zibs deal would take him to near age 30 while Ellis ends around 28.

 

[Matz03]

Few people like Hags more than me but he was left unprotected because he is not producing up to his contract. There was little risk Vegas would take him but if they did Pitt may have felt it was for the best. He was a healthy scratch in the finals.

The Panthers made it to the finals but had a worse record than we did so I'm not looking at them as definitive experts on signings.

Josi is 26 and his contract ends at 29. A 5 year deal takes Zibs to 29.

Ekholm is 26. Lets revisit this when he is 30 with 2 more years left.

Ellis signed a 5 year deal just as I have been speaking about with Zibs except Zibs deal would take him to near age 30 while Ellis ends around 28.

Haglin absolutely makes too much for what he is. That's why I included him as a candidate that should've been locked up longer term by us earlier. His current contract is where the bride deal wasn't smart and he got UFA $ as an RFA. Clearly too much for him. He was a player with an obvious floor so after his ELC was the time to give him 5 years similar to Jarnkrok. He's a player that contributes more than just the score sheet, and fit this team's system here. He was the exact same players for 4 years after his ELC until last year battling with injury. So we'd be dealing with an injured Haglin on a cheap deal with 1-2 years left on his deal. If Ekholm does start to regress, no signs right now that's the case, what do you think his buyout might be in 2 years? I can tell it's easier to absorb than Staal or Girardi.

I'm not asking them to take Zib or other players until they are 32. 28-29-30 is a sweet spot for top 6 players, top 4 D. 27-28 for key depth players that have some special talents not easily found on the market, ie Haglin.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Haglin absolutely makes too much for what he is. That's why I included him as a candidate that should've been locked up longer term by us earlier. His current contract is where the bride deal wasn't smart and he got UFA $ as an RFA. Clearly too much for him. He was a player with an obvious floor so after his ELC was the time to give him 5 years similar to Jarnkrok. He's a player that contributes more than just the score sheet, and fit this team's system here. He was the exact same players for 4 years after his ELC until last year battling with injury. So we'd be dealing with an injured Haglin on a cheap deal with 1-2 years left on his deal. If Ekholm does start to regress, no signs right now that's the case, what do you think his buyout might be in 2 years? I can tell it's easier to absorb than Staal or Girardi.

Ekhom makes less money so it would definitely be a cheaper buyout but I'd prefer not to have contracts to buy out at all whenever possible. That is why I was dead set against signing Cally for 6 years and I felt it was a mistake to sign Dan for 5 years at 30.

 

[Levitate]

Still at 4 years x 5.2m

Didn't Gorton say we didn't want long term deals? 4 years is plenty. Mika is a pretty decent player but not someone to commit long term to. You should always give your team flexibility unless that player is a cornerstone type.

Also as soon as this is a done deal Staal needs to be bought out.

I thought he didn't want long terms deals when referring to UFA's. Not sure if he was talking about their own RFA's.

 

[Don Chytil]

He's asking for $5.35 in arbitration, but he knows he won't get that.

Am I correct in my understanding that Zib's arbitration ask and the Rangers offer are specifically for a 1 year deal? For example, assuming they don't avoid arbitration, the arbitrator would award a 1 year contract that's somewhere between $4.1m and $5.35m?

If that's the case, I'm assuming that a long term contract (6-7 years) could very well end up exceeding $5.35m per. Which I still think is pretty fair for a long term deal.

 

[nyr2k2]

Am I correct in my understanding that Zib's arbitration ask and the Rangers offer are specifically for a 1 year deal? For example, assuming they don't avoid arbitration, the arbitrator would award a 1 year contract that's somewhere between $4.1m and $5.35m?

If that's the case, I'm assuming that a long term contract (6-7 years) could very well end up exceeding $5.35m per. Which I still think is pretty fair for a long term deal.

Correct. The team could also opt for a two year award but they have to do so ahead of arbitration and I don't think they did so. So yeah, the arbitration ruling will come in somewhere in between. The number he asked for absolutely could be what he ends up getting on a long term deal. Brian Dumoulin who I mentioned earlier asked for $4.35M in arbitration and signed a long term deal for $4.1M. Thomas Tatar asked for $5.3M in arbitration and ended up getting exactly that on his four year deal.

I've said all along I think Zibanejad gets $5.2M per for five years which is close to his arbitration ask.

 

[TheTakedown]

Correct. The team could also opt for a two year award but they have to do so ahead of arbitration and I don't think they did so. So yeah, the arbitration ruling will come in somewhere in between. The number he asked for absolutely could be what he ends up getting on a long term deal. Brian Dumoulin who I mentioned earlier asked for $4.35M in arbitration and signed a long term deal for $4.1M. Thomas Tatar asked for $5.3M in arbitration and ended up getting exactly that on his four year deal.

I've said all along I think Zibanejad gets $5.2M per for five years which is close to his arbitration ask.

Brooks reported that before the numbers were released. I feel the same as you. Possible they are haggling over signing bonuses and stuff like that