Confirmed with Link: Rangers Sign Chytil To 2-Year Deal

Lion Hound

@JoeTucc26
Mar 12, 2007
8,239
3,612
Montauk NY
Very good AAV for Chytil.


He's my candidate for breakout player. I think he challenges for #2C behind Zibanejad this season. Weve had tremendous amount of talk about Center depth on this site for quite sometime. I think Chytil is the guy that carries his line and ultimately plays up in the top 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smoneil and Riche16

LokiDog

Get pucks deep. Get pucks to the net. And, uh…
Sep 13, 2018
11,665
22,911
Dallas
I think that if we gave Chytil 4.5Mx6 we'd just be complaining in the opposite direction (it's what we do here...). Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people would be saying it was premature to give him that kind of money. He wasn't going to sign 6x2.75 or something insanely low like that, so the only way we'd have locked him up would have been by paying for future production that may or may not manifest.

Dvorak, in his first 176 games had 32 goals, 77 points, 180 hits, 111 blocks, was 49.6% on draws and averaged around 16 minutes per night. He also did this over 2 full seasons plus 20 games (injury).

Chytil right now, through 186 games has 34 goals, 71 points, 60 hits, 72 blocks, is 38.9% on draws and averages 13:59 per game. This has been through parts of 4 seasons for Chytil.

Dvorak had had 33 and 37 points his first two seasons, straight out of the gate, and then only played 20 games due to injury. He was also a much more complete player, playing on a very low scoring team. Chytil finally paced to surpass 30 points last season but has yet to establish himself as a center and doesn't contribute all over the ice the way Dvorak did/does. Personally, I think if we got him locked up at 4.5M long term and he put up a 35 point season next year, people would be crucifying the contract. I don't think management is comfortable making that kind of commitment to Chytil yet. If he continues his trajectory from last season, we can begin negotiating a new extension while he still has a year left on the bridge. If he stagnates or doesn't breakout as hoped, it's probably better to have the smaller AAV.
 
Last edited:

will1066

Your positivity is not welcomed
Oct 12, 2008
44,856
61,628
no I won't because if Chytil stays the exact same player he still would have been worth what he got long term.

the only thing he does wrong is not get ice time.
You can find cheaper players for 25 points over a 75-82 game season with decent minutes. 2.3M would actually be expensive (not before adjusting for inflation) in a cap world for a 1st round nearly top-20 pick.
 

QJL

Registered User
Jan 2, 2014
6,234
4,536
Very good AAV for Chytil.


He's my candidate for breakout player. I think he challenges for #2C behind Zibanejad this season. Weve had tremendous amount of talk about Center depth on this site for quite sometime. I think Chytil is the guy that carries his line and ultimately plays up in the top 6.

My position is that these two statements contradict one another. You go long term on the player you feel will break out. You bridge a players who don’t have the ceiling that Chytil does.

I don’t love the deal unless Chytil is truly moved in the right package for a definitive 1C.
 

smoneil

Registered User
Jul 14, 2004
5,904
4,979
Arkansas
It wouldn't surprise me if Chytil pushed for the 2-year deal out of concern that his name has been in Buffalo trade reports. He can't get any trade clauses as an RFA. Why sign for 4-6 years if those years might end up in Buffalo? I'm hoping that's not the case, as even if the Rangers DO trade for Eichel, I think the team needs to keep Chytil out of the deal (if Chytil is part of the deal, it leaves us with two fragile, expensive #1 centers and nothing else. We need to be three-deep at C), but I can see it being a concern for the kid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides and Lua

Doctyl

Play-ins Manager
Jan 25, 2011
23,275
7,054
Bofflol
You can find cheaper players for 25 points over a 75-82 game season with decent minutes. 2.3M would actually be expensive (not before adjusting for inflation) in a cap world for a 1st round nearly top-20 pick.
If this organization thinks Chytil is a 25 point player and nothing more, then this rebuild is futile
 
  • Like
Reactions: will1066

smoneil

Registered User
Jul 14, 2004
5,904
4,979
Arkansas
You can find cheaper players for 25 points over a 75-82 game season with decent minutes. 2.3M would actually be expensive (not before adjusting for inflation) in a cap world for a 1st round nearly top-20 pick.

25 points over a 75-82 game season would be a regression, not a stagnation. Stagnation in his production would be 40-45 points over an 82 game season. And seeing as how his production has taken significant steps in each of the last three years, I don't see any reason to predict stagnation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: will1066

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
Everyone is complaining about bridging him, but I don't see any reason Chytil would want 6 years right now. Lock himself into a 3M salary for 6 years? He's still hoping to breakout and get himself a 5M AAV after this. Four years would take him to UFA. Maybe we could have gotten a third year, but there's no incentive for Fil to take a 5+ year deal right now when he has no leverage for salary demands. I doubt he'd have agreed to a 6 year offer right now. He wants a shot at 2C and a chance to earn.
Who said he should take 3 M for 6 years? We're talking 4-5.5
 

Doctyl

Play-ins Manager
Jan 25, 2011
23,275
7,054
Bofflol
We should be doing cartwheels if Chytil commands a significant raise by the time his contract expires

Especially if he does it at center
I won’t be. This is the same shit that we just threw buch away for.
 

Doctyl

Play-ins Manager
Jan 25, 2011
23,275
7,054
Bofflol
If Chytil didn’t want a long term deal, fine. Whatever.

With this organizations track record though, I find that very tough to believe that we were the ones asking to sign him long term and he refused.
 

LokiDog

Get pucks deep. Get pucks to the net. And, uh…
Sep 13, 2018
11,665
22,911
Dallas
Who said he should take 3 M for 6 years? We're talking 4-5.5

I've addressed it. I don't think the team is confident he'll justify a 5M AAV yet and didn't want to commit to one long term. It was either a low ball long term extension - which Chytil would be smart to refuse - or a bridge, with Chytil banking on himself to breakout and NYR not wanting to commit a larger AAV until they see more out of him. I mean seriously, 5.5M? And if he tops out as a 40 point quasi-center who has a 6 year 5.5M contract we're crucifying the entire front office.
 

tomobson

Registered User
Sep 16, 2008
1,966
2,102
With two years left of control the rangers might still be able to get a decent discount on Chytil's next contract. I entirely believe that Drury could have pushed the issue and signed a long term contract if he wanted to but he's playing it safe with forwards just like his predecessor. I hope it doesn't bite us in the ass once again.
 

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
I've addressed it. I don't think the team is confident he'll justify a 5M AAV yet and didn't want to commit to one long term. It was either a low ball long term extension - which Chytil would be smart to refuse - or a bridge, with Chytil banking on himself to breakout and NYR not wanting to commit a larger AAV until they see more out of him.
Yea that's the assumption you have to make but then you have to say "well how many times are we going to risk 4-8 M on 4-8 year deals involving old ass players?"

The old guys are just as much of a risk, if not more so because almost no one plays well into their 30s. We always pay the old guys with drop-off risk, we never lock up the young guys.
 

Leonardo87

New York Rangers, Anaheim Ducks, and TMNT fan.
Sponsor
Dec 8, 2013
39,098
58,204
New York
Feels like they don’t have much faith in Chytil to be the 2c moving forward.
 

PuckLuck3043

Stairway To Heaven
Nov 15, 2017
9,997
15,143
Hudson Valley
Some of you guys will just complain about anything and everything when it comes to contracts. The same guys complaining about locking him up for 2 years will complain that we should trade him next year. It's unbelievable. I like Chytil and believe he has definite upside but he has scored 45 points in 102 games the last 2 years. We didn't just bridge Gretzky for cripes sake. What is wrong with some of you? You don't even know how many years the kid wanted. Even when this contract expires he will still be a RFA. It's a perfectly reasonable contract. Some of you are just insufferable.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
Yea that's the assumption you have to make but then you have to say "well how many times are we going to risk 4-8 M on 4-8 year deals involving old ass players?"

The old guys are just as much of a risk, if not more so because almost no one plays well into their 30s. We always pay the old guys with drop-off risk, we never lock up the young guys.

While I agree with you in general about the signing of older players to pure UFA deals,

I find this to be a little different.

He is 21, will be 23 when this ends.

If at that point they sign him to anything between 5-8 years they'll probably get a good contract out of Chytil's prime and literally can't sign him past age 31. The contracts where the Rangers extended a player when he had multiple RFA and UFA years within the same contract have actually been pretty good.

It's any extension after that which would include only UFA years where things get silly.


Now say they did instead go 6 years now, he'd be 27 at contracts end and a UFA. That's a contract extension they are overpaying for just like they always do concerning any large amount of UFA years, and if they don't feel like paying up, they end up trading him for peanuts if the recent predicts the future.
 

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
Im going to go out on a limb just for fun and be overreactionary.

Looking at his potential, skill, talent, ability and all around game this is exactly who you sign long term. Flat out f*** this scared organization, it's excuses and it's inability to see past it's own nose. Pour some money into this teams future instead of overpaying for a players past for once

A rebuild where all our top picks underperform to expectation, we trade a top young player for beans so we could sign old ass players for 3-6 years and then we refuse to pay one of our top picks long term. Great rebuild. Claps all around.

Now that I vented, he probably wouldn't even sign a 7 or 8 year deal unless it was like 6.5 and at that point you can't take that risk.

So what am I talking about? I think just general frustration from 4 years of mistakes
 
Last edited:

PuckLuck3043

Stairway To Heaven
Nov 15, 2017
9,997
15,143
Hudson Valley
Yea that's the assumption you have to make but then you have to say "well how many times are we going to risk 4-8 M on 4-8 year deals involving old ass players?"

The old guys are just as much of a risk, if not more so because almost no one plays well into their 30s. We always pay the old guys with drop-off risk, we never lock up the young guys.

The old guys have earned it and are free agents and can get paid by any other team. They have leverage and the market dictates the money and terms.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad