Then don't go after a player like Larkin.
We don't care. Cost of doing business.
What you CAN offer isn't. What you DO offer is.
let's cut the bs.
We don't have a right to tell you who you will take.
You don't have a right to force surrender of assets preferred/needed to keep.
If there is a middle ground, fine. If not, we all move on.
First things first, what about the word "freebie" and the insinuated statement "all you have to do is pay his bloated contract cost" makes sense being used in the same sentence in your world?
More importantly, if he has been a good player as you suggest, you wouldn't "throw him in as a freebie" and try to recoup value. And if you are willing to "throw him in as a freebie" then certainly there's a negative value hanging around there somewhere that you are trying to escape.
There is nothing clandestine or underhanded in my representations.
We all know NY was his first choice but hometown DET was an acceptable second.
It is accurate to say he is being thrown in as a freebie b'c except for the salary, which is both obvious and I was up front about it, because no plauer or other asset is being demanded in return.
Also, as I said before which is conveniently being ignored, Trouba is NOT deadwood like Seabrook is now.
He is productive in varying degree dep. on system and who his partner is. And the post quoted below agrees to extent of his on ice production is useful.
The ? is if he is productive and you do not have to send anything the other way, and you have enough cap space, why would you not want him for free. [in terms of acquition cost]? And if it is only a matter of cap hit, why would you come back with 'not interested' as opposed to something like:
he's overpaid by like a mil, a mil five, eat 2 mil cap hit annually.
Because at the end of the day, you are a Rangers fan and your trades always favor the Rangers.
All of us make trades favoring our own teams.
With isolated exceptions no one designs them for equal/fair value, let alone a loss.
You tend put together long, boring posts with a lot of bending over backwards to suggest that your spare parts, negative value contracts, and depth level prospects somehow can combine to match the value of the one key component the Rangers end up on the receiving end of.
Most people,, agree or disagree, do not find my content boring.
That personal opinion is an aspersion made in the hope it will enhance the rest of your argument, which it does not.
Everyone's arguments should and usually rise or fall on the merits, esp after the merits are clearly revealed and understood.
There is no conceivable way that the Rangers lose a deal when the move out a bland middle 6 player in Strome,
Strome is not bland, not in recent memory. He is playing like ballpark a t top 10C.
Objective examination of the facts will verify.
get out of the Trouba deal,
incidental and does not impact the players going to Wings.
don't give up any significant prospect,
In leiu of a prospect, I had Buch and a 1st
and in return they get one of the better two way top 6 centers in the league that has been stuck on and held back by a bad Detroit roster.
That is not on me and you are theoretically sellling him b'c you have to.
Zero value given up, lots of value coming back.
It is your math that does not add up.
What a genius you are.
Cruel attempts at sarcasm do not make you look good.
The Wings could absolutely use Jacob Trouba. He's still a good hockey player.
On this we agree.
He's not worth 8M for the remainder of his contract, though.
Concur.
Especially not in a flat cap situation.
Concur x 2.
If you want to free up 8M in cap long term, it's going to cost you and cost you dearly.
Yes and no.
Now that it has been established in honesty that you COULD use him, AND you recognize he IS useful and not Seabrook level of drek, I expect you to bill accordingly.
If he was complete crap I would expect the Marleau standard of a 1st for 6M+ PER YEAR on a guy that has no productive contribution whatsoever.
That is not the case w/Trouba.
You are looking at what do you want to take on 1-2m per for the duration of his deal, mitigated by the fact that his NMC does not exist entirety of his deal. Can be moved in another 3 years.
He's not a "freebie toss in". His contract is an albatross around your neck and we're not going to be cool and take it off for no charge.
I didn't say no charge. I said mindful of the above, plus he is a productive player.
I'd rather sign Alec Martinez for somewhere in the 4 or 5 million for a couple years.
You have a right to that preference, but AM has lots more miles and as is way more beat up and used up that JT.
Or wait and toss 8-10m at Werenski who seems to want to come to Detroit.
I don;t know about8-10 mil but a signif # for Werenski, depending on term and conditions, could be good. If you are not paying top $ to any other D at the moment, you may be able to swing it.
Also if you land Trouba, and Werenski feels he's got somebody besides Seider and Hronek, he may respond favorably to that.
It's not that Trouba is even bad... it's that we can use 8M so much more effectively than to take him on.
That is a fair and legit pt.
But remain mindful this is a subcomponent separate transaction from the larger deal, separate and apart from assets for larkin.
Also in the short term, let's remember in fairness I took DeKeyser + to more than cover the initial cap hit.
So if this deal actually nets you $ benefitting from cap taken by Rangers. and Trouba can be dealt after 2 yrs from that pt, there is really very little duration in which Wings are stuck w/Trouba if they don't want him..
