Jacob Trouba

[Hunter368]

Do you think Trouba would go 8 years? That puts him at 30 for his UFA contract. You'd have to think the agent would push hard for a 5-6 year deal to put him in optimal position at age 27-28 for his UFA deal. I think Chevy gets Trouba done at the same number as Rielly...maybe a shade less.

No I don't, I was just putting my most wishful thinking type of contract done. If I had to really guess I'll say 6 yrs x 4.75-5 mil.

 

[KingBogo]

No I don't, I was just putting my most wishful thinking type of contract done. If I had to really guess I'll say 6 yrs x 4.75-5 mil.

After Rielly's contract I think that's the length and range as well.

 

[Grind]

That framing is ridiculous.

Mention that troubas played with buff and bogosian for like 30 games and not the 100+ Stuart the boat anchor.

Either way, ID rather see 8 then 6. If your just going to do 6 ID rather see a bridge for 1 or 2 before hand to get more ufa years. 6 is kind of meh.

 

[KingBogo]

That framing is ridiculous.

Mention that troubas played with buff and bogosian for like 30 games and not the 100+ Stuart the boat anchor.

Either way, ID rather see 8 then 6. If your just going to do 6 ID rather see a bridge for 1 or 2 before hand to get more ufa years. 6 is kind of meh.

But from a player/agent perspective that is likely the length of term the are pushing for. So it all comes down to a trade off between salary Vs. term. 6 year terms seem like a pretty common middle ground for a lot of players coming off ELC's.

 

[Channelcat]

If Trouba and Ovehardt aren't willing to play nice in contract negotiations, I'm comfortable with trading him. It would suck, but if it has to happen, it will.

I miss the days when teams just let a RFA sit until he decided to be reasonable.

 

[10Ducky10]

Signing 2 players for the same long year contracts is a bad ideal. You have to stagger contracts. You don't want 2 star players contracts up at the same time.

I don't agree with that at all. A GM plans well into the future and what does one year mean if you stagger them?
Getzlaf-Perry, Thornton-Marleau and Toews-Kane would seem to disprove your comment.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The market is pretty much set now. The only strategy is whether they want pursue a bridge or a long term contract.

Yup. Go for 2 years, 6 years or 8 years. 8 is pretty unlikely so it is between 2 and 6.

 

[Evil Little]

That framing is ridiculous.

Mention that troubas played with buff and bogosian for like 30 games and not the 100+ Stuart the boat anchor.

Either way, ID rather see 8 then 6. If your just going to do 6 ID rather see a bridge for 1 or 2 before hand to get more ufa years. 6 is kind of meh.

Yes, I want more than two UFA years on a term deal. Fine with a bridge, though.

But geeze, while it's nice that Seravelli's using the same automatically generated support materials as the laziest of us, his contention that Trouba's the beneficiary in the partnership duel is an absolute joke. Where Gardiner has a star (as should Byfuglien) Stuart formerly had an anchor.

I hope someone's tweeted him this:

But from a player/agent perspective that is likely the length of term the are pushing for. So it all comes down to a trade off between salary Vs. term. 6 year terms seem like a pretty common middle ground for a lot of players coming off ELC's.

You might be right, but I'd be quite disappointed with 6 years. Unlike the Penguins, the Jets need to keep salary down in '21/'22 more then they need to keep salary down in '17/'18.

I'd be fine with a compromise at 7 years (with Scheifele at 8).

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

Yup. Go for 2 years, 6 years or 8 years. 8 is pretty unlikely so it is between 2 and 6.

I believe 8 years is difficult due to insurance reasons. ( I read that some where when Bogo signed)

So 2 years 6 or 7 years.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Yes, I want more than two UFA years on a term deal. Fine with a bridge, though.

But geeze, while it's nice that Seravelli's using the same automatically generated support materials as the laziest of us, his contention that Trouba's the beneficiary in the partnership duel is an absolute joke. Where Gardiner has a star (as should Byfuglien) Stuart formerly had an anchor.


You might be right, but I'd be quite disappointed with 6 years. Unlike the Penguins, the Jets need to keep salary down in '21/'22 more then they need to keep salary down in '17/'18.

I'd be fine with a compromise at 7 years (with Scheifele at 8).

6 years seems to be the compromise term of choice recently. Trouba hasn't earned the big money that he would need for an 8 year deal yet. His agent might push for a bridge to give him time to earn the big money. The Jets might up their offer a bit to get him for 6.

 

[Aavco Cup]

I believe 8 years is difficult due to insurance reasons. ( I read that some where when Bogo signed)

So 2 years 6 or 7 years.

The biggest obstacle to an 8 year deal won't be insurance costs. It will be the Trouba camp wanting to keep his contract shorter so that he is younger when he's ready to sign his next contract. The team is going to have to give him a reason to do an 8 year deal (overpay) so pretty unlikely IMO.

Ideally from their point of view they would choose 4 years and UFA at the ealiest possible age. There's a reason that these deals almost always end up at 6 years. It's a compromise.

 

[ps241]

The biggest obstacle to an 8 year deal won't be insurance costs. It will be the Trouba camp wanting to keep his contract shorter so that he is younger when he's ready to sign his next contract. The team is going to have to give him a reason to do an 8 year deal (overpay) so pretty unlikely IMO.

Ideally from their point of view they would choose 4 years and UFA at the ealiest possible age. There's a reason that these deals almost always end up at 6 years. It's a compromise.

Yea a 6 year deal probably makes sense for both sides.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I believe 8 years is difficult due to insurance reasons. ( I read that some where when Bogo signed)

So 2 years 6 or 7 years.

The biggest obstacle to an 8 year deal won't be insurance costs. It will be the Trouba camp wanting to keep his contract shorter so that he is younger when he's ready to sign his next contract. The team is going to have to give him a reason to do an 8 year deal (overpay) so pretty unlikely IMO.

Ideally from their point of view they would choose 4 years and UFA at the ealiest possible age. There's a reason that these deals almost always end up at 6 years. It's a compromise.

Yes. Either 6 or 2. The team won't be willing to pay the AAV that 8 would cost for a player who has yet to really establish himself. They likely won't want to do a 2 year bridge deal either. They will be willing to pay, up to a point to get him locked up. They will prefer to avoid the big payday that is likely to follow a 2 year deal. OTOH the agent may like a bridge deal on the assumption that the next contract would be for big money. There is a whole basket of trade-offs involved. Trouba still being more potential than proven makes the 2 year deal quite likely. It will come down to how far are they willing to go to get a 6 year deal done and that is something we just don't know. My gut feeling is that they will step up and pay close to Rielly money. Really no feel for whether that will be enough. If not then we will see a 2 year deal done and we will know that he will be looking for big $$$ in 2 years time.

 

[scelaton]

Trouba's career nearly ended from a neck injury in his first season.
S*** happens and that is the risk of a bridge contract.

If I were Chevy I'd ask Trouba 2 questions:
1)Are you happy with and fully committed to the prospect of playing in Winnipeg for your career?
2)Are you willing to accept Rielly money ($5M) for 7 years?

The answers to those questions wil be telling. Rielly is a very flattering comparator for Trouba (hence the extra year), and $35M is more money than any individual could possibly spend in a lifetime, unless they have an addiction or are being conned by their agent/family.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Yes. Either 6 or 2. The team won't be willing to pay the AAV that 8 would cost for a player who has yet to really establish himself. They likely won't want to do a 2 year bridge deal either. They will be willing to pay, up to a point to get him locked up. They will prefer to avoid the big payday that is likely to follow a 2 year deal. OTOH the agent may like a bridge deal on the assumption that the next contract would be for big money. There is a whole basket of trade-offs involved. Trouba still being more potential than proven makes the 2 year deal quite likely. It will come down to how far are they willing to go to get a 6 year deal done and that is something we just don't know. My gut feeling is that they will step up and pay close to Rielly money. Really no feel for whether that will be enough. If not then we will see a 2 year deal done and we will know that he will be looking for big $$$ in 2 years time.

Overhart's client Ryan Johansen ended up with a three year bridge with $6M in yr 3. This meant a huge QO required to retain rights. To achieve that 3 yr bridge Johansen held out and missed the entire training camp. I hope that holding out isn't part of the Trouba strategy.

The difference could be that Johansen was coming off a huge year. Trouba not so much.

 

[buggs]

6 years seems to be the compromise term of choice recently. Trouba hasn't earned the big money that he would need for an 8 year deal yet. His agent might push for a bridge to give him time to earn the big money. The Jets might up their offer a bit to get him for 6.

I think a bridge is a prudent approach for both parties, particularly in Trouba's case since his partner of majority was hurtful to his progress. It would also suit the Jets to see perhaps what they truly have (so long as they #freeTrouba).

But I think Rielly's contract more or less changes things in that as long as Trouba isn't unhappy in Winnipeg, that six year deal is a reasonably good comparable. It's hard for Winnipeg to argue it's not fair value for a very comparable (at this point in time) player. It's also hard for Trouba's camp to argue he deserves more (Hamilton) so it becomes a reasonable middle ground.

My preference is bridge or 8 years but I think the bar has been set and is likely to be met.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think a bridge is a prudent approach for both parties, particularly in Trouba's case since his partner of majority was hurtful to his progress. It would also suit the Jets to see perhaps what they truly have (so long as they #freeTrouba).

But I think Rielly's contract more or less changes things in that as long as Trouba isn't unhappy in Winnipeg, that six year deal is a reasonably good comparable. It's hard for Winnipeg to argue it's not fair value for a very comparable (at this point in time) player. It's also hard for Trouba's camp to argue he deserves more (Hamilton) so it becomes a reasonable middle ground.

My preference is bridge or 8 years but I think the bar has been set and is likely to be met.

I think it is pretty much a toss-up between 6 & 2 for all the reasons named. Even with an RFA where the team holds the trump cards it takes 2 parties to sign a contract. I can see Trouba's camp holding out for the 2 year deal. If the Jets agree it indicates they are willing to pay the big money later on IF Trouba earns it. If Trouba signs for 6 it indicates he is willing to be reasonable (assuming no overpay of course) in exchange for stability and more money in his pocket now.

I think this one will be interesting to watch unfold (if we get to see anything that is ). If I was betting on it I would go for 6 @ 4.75-5.

 

[Gm0ney]

Here's a non-comprehensive list of Overhardt's holdout clients:

Ryan Johansen
Kyle Turris
Brandon Dubinsky
Ryan Kesler
Marty Turco

It's certainly a negotiating tool that Overhardt's not afraid to use.

 

[Flair Hay]

If we could get Trouba at 5M for 7 years that seems just about right to me.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Overhart's client Ryan Johansen ended up with a three year bridge with $6M in yr 3. This meant a huge QO required to retain rights. To achieve that 3 yr bridge Johansen held out and missed the entire training camp. I hope that holding out isn't part of the Trouba strategy.

The difference could be that Johansen was coming off a huge year. Trouba not so much.

That's a 'huge' difference. Much stronger bargaining position. If I was RyJo's agent I would probably have done the same. Take advantage of the leverage to get either a big $$$ long term deal or the shortest, most lucrative path to UFA.

Trouba could be painted as underachieving. Analysis supports the idea that any lack of achievement lies at Stuart's feet but the underwhelming performance is a fact. How it plays out will depend on how the 2 parties want to spin the performance.

If they try too hard to force a too favourable to Trouba contract I would support moving him for value. If not I would support paying above his simple stats in recognition of his real value.

 

[Bob E]

To me, Trouba likely wants to be the alpha dog on d, at some point. First unit pp, pk and play 25 mins a night.

I think Trouba wants to be the man, and the rewards that come with that. If, IF, he's disgruntled in Winnipeg, it's because there are players in his way from being "the guy".

Right now, the Jets have Buff in that role. Will be in that role for at least 2 more years, until his full NMC lifts. At that point, a Buff move is a possibility.

It may be in Trouba's best interest to bridge for 2 years, see what happens with his own development and playing time, and whether he surpasses Buff in effectiveness. Should Trouba develop into a legit top dman on the team, then you can pay him accordingly and move Buff. That would be when a long term deal is best for him in maximizing dollars, the PK Subban example. Otherwise, Troubs is making $5mill and playing like a $9 mill player.

If I were the Jets, I'd go 6 years at $5-$5.5 mill, with Trouba and know for most of that contract he will be outperforming the annual value.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

If we could get Trouba at 5M for 7 years that seems just about right to me.

Seems about right to me but I think it is more likely to be a little lower AAV and 6 years. Bumping up to 7 would cost a little more than that I think. Just my seat of the pants guess but I think the target for Trouba will be higher. That's why the 2 year deal seems likely to me.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

To me, Trouba likely wants to be the alpha dog on d, at some point. First unit pp, pk and play 25 mins a night.

I think Trouba wants to be the man, and the rewards that come with that. If, IF, he's disgruntled in Winnipeg, it's because there are players in his way from being "the guy".

Right now, the Jets have Buff in that role. Will be in that role for at least 2 more years, until his full NMC lifts. At that point, a Buff move is a possibility.

It may be in Trouba's best interest to bridge for 2 years, see what happens with his own development and playing time, and whether he surpasses Buff in effectiveness. Should Trouba develop into a legit top dman on the team, then you can pay him accordingly and move Buff. That would be when a long term deal is best for him in maximizing dollars, the PK Subban example. Otherwise, Troubs is making $5mill and playing like a $9 mill player.

If I were the Jets, I'd go 6 years at $5-$5.5 mill, with Trouba and know for most of that contract he will be outperforming the annual value.

Not unreasonable in a vacuum. I don't see Trouba getting a nickel more than Rielly until AFTER he proves he is worth it. So 6 years is for something at least a little less than 5.

I agree with the rest of your post though. The more I think about it the more I expect a 2 year deal at about 3 per. I'm bouncing between 2 and 6 but the bridge gives Trouba the shot at the bigger money. I think he will go that way. 2x3 followed by 8x7 = 6.2 over 10 years total. Or if it is followed by 6x7 it = an avg of 6. That should just about catch him up with Scheif who should get about 8x6 to begin with.

 

[Whileee]

Not unreasonable in a vacuum. I don't see Trouba getting a nickel more than Rielly until AFTER he proves he is worth it. So 6 years is for something at least a little less than 5.

I agree with the rest of your post though. The more I think about it the more I expect a 2 year deal at about 3 per. I'm bouncing between 2 and 6 but the bridge gives Trouba the shot at the bigger money. I think he will go that way. 2x3 followed by 8x7 = 6.2 over 10 years total. Or if it is followed by 6x7 it = an avg of 6. That should just about catch him up with Scheif who should get about 8x6 to begin with.

I don't think it's unreasonable for Trouba to get more than Rielly, all things considered.

 

[Grind]

But from a player/agent perspective that is likely the length of term the are pushing for. So it all comes down to a trade off between salary Vs. term. 6 year terms seem like a pretty common middle ground for a lot of players coming off ELC's.

Absolutely. Which is why I wasn't ecstatic or sold that we'd get him for salary comparative to maata/rielly/etc.

If the numbers are higher ID expect 2 additional. Years of term. Otherwise, where's the value vs just bridging him?

If you can bridge him for one or two at sub 4, then get him for 6 more years at only a mil more per season it doesn't work out to a huge net plus in salary and you get the two years.

I'd like to see us keep him for at least another 7, either through long term deal now or bridge + extension.

But IMO he's a 5 mil player now, (provided he's not playing with he who shall not be named)