Confirmed with Link: Brady Skjei re-signed [6 years, $5.25MM AAV]

[Harbour Dog]

What's the advantage to not front-loading a contract? I'm drawing a blank.

 

[Thirty One]

What's the advantage to not front-loading a contract? I'm drawing a blank.

Well they can earn interest on that money they’re not spending in the early years of the contract, and a potential buyout would be lighter on the cap. But I think it would be better to front-load contracts more and more often than the Rangers do. We saw the benefits in the Brassard trade.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Well they can earn interest on that money they’re not spending in the early years of the contract, and a potential buyout would be lighter on the cap. But I think it would be better to front-load contracts more and more often than the Rangers do. We saw the benefits in the Brassard trade.

Well that's something, I guess. Hopefully having to potentially buy him out wasn't a consideration while they were negotiating the contract though.

I guess it would also hold Skjei a little more accountable towards the end of the contract, but again, if that's a consideration then maybe you shouldn't be signing him in the first place.

Just seems like all parties benefit more from front-loading.

 

[Miamipuck]

It's an OK deal. I just don't see it ever being a huge bargain. I like Skjei, he's a great skater and decent defenseman. That said, I just don't see the hockey sense in him to make this deal a steal. Where he improves significantly enough on his weaknesses to become a McD type of player.

The way I see it. It's obviously more likely to become a cheaper contract in a few years strictly because of league inflation or cap expansion if you will. I see Skjei more or less he is what he is at this point.

Conversly, I don't see a huge decline to make this deal dreck either. He's too good a skater to significantly regress in the next 5 years at least.

 

[Miamipuck]

Well they can earn interest on that money they’re not spending in the early years of the contract, and a potential buyout would be lighter on the cap. But I think it would be better to front-load contracts more and more often than the Rangers do. We saw the benefits in the Brassard trade.

That would be even more of an advantage in a non restricted contract, like this one.

 

[Cassano]

I don't think he'll play out his contract as a Ranger. Term and money a bit too much for my liking, but shouldn't cause any long term cap complications.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Perfect term. I wanted him at 6/30 so I can't really bitch about $250,000 a year.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

Perfect term. I wanted him at 6/30 so I can't really ***** about $250,000 a year.

I’m not sure you understand how this website works...

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I’m not sure you understand how this website works...

I'd argue that the people that bitch and moan about that don't understand.

 

[Off Sides]

Hmm,

Let's say those 3 UFA years would have cost 7M, or 21M total

They would be paying about 3.5M average for his remaining RFA years. I guess that is about right?

If those UFA years would have cost 6M each, they are paying on average 4.5M for the 3 RFA years. Which seems high for them.

I'm not sure I see a huge upside to this deal other than so far no clauses have been reported and it's 6 year worth of something.

Also not sure about the structure, as has been asked, front loading is something the Rangers can do without it stressing them.

I don't dislike it that much either, guess the Rangers either expect him to improve, or they really expect the price for the UFA years of the Skjei's of the league to go way up. All the same he is signed, I don't think this becomes one of those anchor contracts or anything, just not sure I see it as a bargain either.

 

[Tawnos]

Hmm,

Let's say those 3 UFA years would have cost 7M, or 21M total

They would be paying about 3.5M average for his remaining RFA years. I guess that is about right?

If those UFA years would have cost 6M each, they are paying on average 4.5M for the 3 RFA years. Which seems high for them.

I'm not sure I see a huge upside to this deal other than so far no clauses have been reported and it's 6 year worth of something.

Also not sure about the structure, as has been asked, front loading is something the Rangers can do without it stressing them.

I don't dislike it that much either, guess the Rangers either expect him to improve, or they really expect the price for the UFA years of the Skjei's of the league to go way up. All the same he is signed, I don't think this becomes one of those anchor contracts or anything, just not sure I see it as a bargain either.

This kind of thinking is starting to be a little out of date. Teams are beginning to want to pay more for a players upcoming best years rather than past performance. This mitigates the leverage issue that caused the big difference between RFA and UFA salaries. RFA salaries have been rising as a result, while UFA contracts have, overall, been getting shorter and cheaper.

This doesn’t apply so much to the top end guys as the middle tier of players getting $3-7m.

 

[Off Sides]

This kind of thinking is starting to be a little out of date. Teams are beginning to want to pay more for a players upcoming best years rather than past performance. This mitigates the leverage issue that caused the big difference between RFA and UFA salaries. RFA salaries have been rising as a result, while UFA contracts have, overall, been getting shorter and cheaper.

This doesn’t apply so much to the top end guys as the middle tier of players getting $3-7m.

Good point, in a way I am noticing the same trend although if that is true that would also mean these UFA years in this contract in the future maybe could have been cheaper than the 7M I used in the example.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Hmm,

Let's say those 3 UFA years would have cost 7M, or 21M total

They would be paying about 3.5M average for his remaining RFA years. I guess that is about right?

If those UFA years would have cost 6M each, they are paying on average 4.5M for the 3 RFA years. Which seems high for them.

I'm not sure I see a huge upside to this deal other than so far no clauses have been reported and it's 6 year worth of something.

Also not sure about the structure, as has been asked, front loading is something the Rangers can do without it stressing them.

I don't dislike it that much either, guess the Rangers either expect him to improve, or they really expect the price for the UFA years of the Skjei's of the league to go way up. All the same he is signed, I don't think this becomes one of those anchor contracts or anything, just not sure I see it as a bargain either.

Keep in mind that we are rebuilding. We are paying a "premium" on his AAV right now in a year that we couldn't care less about cap space.

 

[Off Sides]

Cap friendly added a 10 team no trade in the final 3 years.

Again not that I think it's the worst thing ever but it's just seems to me like the Rangers felt more of a need to get this long term done here than maybe they really needed to. Something like they did not want him to end up being able to leave as early as he could as a UFA.

It's not like I am against Skjei, I think he is a good player but to put it into one perspective, he will be about ~65th highest cap hit among D and while I'm sure some other contracts will push him down that list as the years go by, on the flip side some above him will retire or decline, I'm just not sure he quite fits in the ~65th-75th or so cap hit range among D. I guess I just never saw him as just outside of top pair.

 

[TheGuarantee]

It's an OK deal. I just don't see it ever being a huge bargain. I like Skjei, he's a great skater and decent defenseman. That said, I just don't see the hockey sense in him to make this deal a steal. Where he improves significantly enough on his weaknesses to become a McD type of player.

The way I see it. It's obviously more likely to become a cheaper contract in a few years strictly because of league inflation or cap expansion if you will. I see Skjei more or less he is what he is at this point.

Conversly, I don't see a huge decline to make this deal dreck either. He's too good a skater to significantly regress in the next 5 years at least.

Two years in is his peak? Okay

 

[JimmyG89]

Still one of the better young D in the NHL and he's locking into a relatively friendly deal. Good for both sides. Really interested on if he can become the anchor of the defense.

Also, by the time this deal is coming to an end, we could be looking at a team that has Hajek, Lindgren, and possibly Miller on the left side, all in their mid-early 20s. You don't want to throw it out there, but there could be a reasonable ground to trade him in year 5 or 6, depending on where the team is going at that point AND who is on the roster.

 

[Miamipuck]

Two years in is his peak? Okay

Yeah I don't think he's going to be significant'y better so yeah ok.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Yeah I don't think he's going to be significant'y better so yeah ok.

That’s kind of odd though, most players, especially defesenman, takes 3-4 years to hit their primes. Any specific reason why you think he’s done developing?

 

[TheGuarantee]

That’s kind of odd though, most players, especially defesenman, takes 3-4 years to hit their primes. Any specific reason why you think he’s done developing?

Yeah pretty wild conclusion, especially on the fact he had a better rookie year than second (which is normal, in addition to taking in the fact the entire nyr stunk last year and his partner for half a year was Rob OGara)

 

[Thirty One]

Yeah pretty wild conclusion, especially on the fact he had a better rookie year than second (which is normal, in addition to taking in the fact the entire nyr stunk last year and his partner for half a year was Rob OGara)

He played 110 minutes with O'Gara.

 

[NYR]

This is probably the only signing I'm on board with so far but having to watch this kid even attempt to take on the monumental task of trying to cover up for all of Shattenkirk's defensive deficiencies is going be a joke..

 

[Miamipuck]

That’s kind of odd though, most players, especially defesenman, takes 3-4 years to hit their primes. Any specific reason why you think he’s done developing?

Yeah I specifically said, I don't think he has the hockey smarts to be a top tier #1 defenseman. That is what would make the contract a bargain, I mean a true #1 he doesn't have to be a top tier. He has a lot of physical ability and relies on it. If I am wrong I am wrong. I happen to subscribe to the he is what he is at this point. I think he is best suited to the 3-4 slot. Of course on this team he's going to be bumped up to the #1-2 area.

And it ain't no f***ing wild conclusion.

 

[TheGuarantee]

He played 110 minutes with O'Gara.

110 too many

 

[Thirty One]

This is probably the only signing I'm on board with so far but having to watch this kid even attempt to take on the monumental task of trying to cover up for all of Shattenkirk's defensive deficiencies is going be a joke..

Hey, what is the update on our bet?

 

[NYR]

Hey, what is the update on our bet?

The update will be when you thank me for not taking your money.
Now give it a rest..