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

[Ola]

I have to say, the arguments in favor of these bridge deals are the worst I’ve ever come across on any topic at this board. They don’t even start to make sense. Emotional arguments like ‘what has he done to really earn it? You must EARN it.’

Nobody “earned” it like Staal and Girardi. There are literary much better arguments for why someone that has “earned it” never should get a long contract.

 

[Ola]

Drury with this deal without any single doubt proved that he is not competent to be a GM of a NHL team. No other good GM would have considered it. The — only — time it makes sense to give a kid a bridge deal is when a long term deal would have been tremendously expensive due to the player already having performed well or when a team simply has no cap room.

But you get what you deserve. How many of the reporters will question Drury tomorrow? It won’t even be a topic. Does the fans on Twitter question it? It’s obviously to complex for them. They love the “you have to earn it” argument, One Cup in 70 years. How long until the next?

 

[Rangers ftw]

I have to say, the arguments in favor of these bridge deals are the worst I’ve ever come across on any topic at this board. They don’t even start to make sense. Emotional arguments like ‘what has he done to really earn it? You must EARN it.’

Nobody “earned” it like Staal and Girardi. There are literary much better arguments for why someone that has “earned it” never should get a long contract.

Is there really? Like isn’t Fox more deserving of a long term contract than Chytil? Or Buch (if he was still here) over Kravtsov?

 

[Ola]

Is there really? Like isn’t Fox more deserving of a long term contract than Chytil? Or Buch (if he was still here) over Kravtsov?

Definitely!

The — only — thing that matter is how good a player is (which will be the basis for how much he is paid) vs how good you think the player will be down the road.

Even if a player is not expected to be better down the road, it can in addition make sense to lock him up so that he can’t bolt to someone else.

Take Buch’s last contract. We easily pissed away a 1st round pick worth of value when giving him a bridge deal. Did you think Buch would improve and be worth more down the road at that time? He did and hence a long term deal would have been great.

Chytil hasn’t shows much. He isn’t getting 5m on a 6 year deal. He has zero leverage, can only sign what is put infront of him or hold out. Would he sign for 6 years and 4.5m per? Of course. Or he could go to the KHL. Doubt he would. If he doesn’t develop well, we can easily move him at any time like Skjei. If he plays great, he would be immensely valuable just like Buch.

 

[Ola]

Fox is easily the player I would be the least concerned with giving a bridge deal. He can hardly top his last season by much.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

Definitely!

The — only — thing that matter is how good a player is (which will be the basis for how much he is paid) vs how good you think the player will be down the road.

Even if a player is not expected to be better down the road, it can in addition make sense to lock him up so that he can’t bolt to someone else.

Take Buch’s last contract. We easily pissed away a 1st round pick worth of value when giving him a bridge deal. Did you think Buch would improve and be worth more down the road at that time? He did and hence a long term deal would have been great.

Chytil hasn’t shows much. He isn’t getting 5m on a 6 year deal. He has zero leverage, can only sign what is put infront of him or hold out. Would he sign for 6 years and 4.5m per? Of course. Or he could go to the KHL. Doubt he would. If he doesn’t develop well, we can easily move him at any time like Skjei. If he plays great, he would be immensely valuable just like Buch.

Why would he sign for 6 years at 4.5M?

 

[Crease]

I have to say, the arguments in favor of these bridge deals are the worst I’ve ever come across on any topic at this board. They don’t even start to make sense. Emotional arguments like ‘what has he done to really earn it? You must EARN it.’

Nobody “earned” it like Staal and Girardi. There are literary much better arguments for why someone that has “earned it” never should get a long contract.

The contract system in the NHL is designed so that players are underpaid during their RFA years and overpaid during their UFA years.

Guys like Staal and Girardi “deserved” their big contracts, because they were significantly underpaid relative to their output during their RFA years. No one questions that Staal and Girardi were better hockey players in their 20s than in their 30s. But they weren’t eligible for big paydays until 30s. That’s just the way the system is set up in North America.

When we talk about an RFA “deserves”, the default is to be underpaid. The exception is when they are so good that it would be an insult not to pay them closer to what they would earn in UFA. Chytil doesn’t “deserve” that exceptional treatment. Fox, for example, does.

 

[Ola]

@Crease No, that is not how it is. The team has all the leverage until a player gets arbitration rights and after that the player gets all the leverage.

You can use that leverage to get one of two thing. (a) a big gain short term, 2-3 years, or (b) a bigger gain long term, 6-8 years, if the player develops well.

It’s not harder than that.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Unless we're getting a Lindholm (ship has sailed), I would hand Chytil 2C, along with more ice time and PP2 mins.

He was at a half pt a game clip last year, playing Quinn reduced minutes and no PP time.

The only reason he shouldn't be the 2C is if Panarin is saying he doesn't want him on his line like Kakko.

so commit long term to Chytil as the #2 center, who hasn’t demonstrated to be a playmaker, b/c Buch developed by age 25? Ok, you might be right but that’s a risky learning lesson imo b/c Buch took a lot longer to develop. Will it continue?

 

[SRHRangers]

so commit long term to Chytil as the #2 center, who hasn’t demonstrated to be a playmaker, b/c Buch developed by age 25? Ok, you might be right but that’s a risky learning lesson imo b/c Buch took a lot longer to develop. Will it continue?

Sometimes you have to take a calculated risk.

Chytil is that happy median where more ice time and is young enough to still fill out and improve, but at the same time, wouldn't break the bank.

Pay a little extra now when we have the cap room, to save on the backend, when we will be penny pinching.

 

[smoneil]

I have to say, the arguments in favor of these bridge deals are the worst I’ve ever come across on any topic at this board. They don’t even start to make sense. Emotional arguments like ‘what has he done to really earn it? You must EARN it.’

Nobody “earned” it like Staal and Girardi. There are literary much better arguments for why someone that has “earned it” never should get a long contract.

Like Macbeth?


(just having fun with a rare opportunity to talk about literary things, haha).

 

[smoneil]

@Crease No, that is not how it is. The team has all the leverage until a player gets arbitration rights and after that the player gets all the leverage.

You can use that leverage to get one of two thing. (a) a big gain short term, 2-3 years, or (b) a bigger gain long term, 6-8 years, if the player develops well.

It’s not harder than that.

It's a lot like retirement accounts. Some people like to go with riskier investments that have a higher yield. Others don't want to take any risk at all. Both the team and the player are taking a risk in offering/signing a long term contract before a player is fully developed. Some teams like to gamble. The Rangers have, historically, been a very conservative team. To mix in another metaphor, the Rangers will only go all in with pocket Aces. Chytil is a Jack/Queen suited. It looks good, but they want to see the flop first.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Sometimes you have to take a calculated risk.

Chytil is that happy median where more ice time and is young enough to still fill out and improve, but at the same time, wouldn't break the bank.

Pay a little extra now when we have the cap room, to save on the backend, when we will be penny pinching.

He’s a center though. If he isn’t a play maker the whole line suffers. If the Rangers extend long term the roster they lose that flexibility you’re referring too. He’s a must not miss going long term today.

 

[will1066]

@Crease No, that is not how it is. The team has all the leverage until a player gets arbitration rights and after that the player gets all the leverage.

You can use that leverage to get one of two thing. (a) a big gain short term, 2-3 years, or (b) a bigger gain long term, 6-8 years, if the player develops well.

It’s not harder than that.

Doesn't mean you go out of your way to screw the player. Or undercut him to the point that he'd rather request a trade to play somewhere else or sit out. Remember the Tony holdout? Different situation, but a player can hold out as an option - nuclear as it might be.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

How do you know Chytil would have accepted a longer deal? Why take a 6 year deal at 3.5/4.0 mil when he can sign for 2 years and then re-sign for 5+ mil on his next contract?

Good thing I said 6 year at 4-5.5 and not 3.5 and 4. Why did you makeup a wrong range of numbers that I didn't say?

I was factoring in making his RFA years more expensive to buy 2 Ufa years bc I'm aware that you have to pay a player in order to get their UFA years.

I never said they could definitely have gotten him for more years. I never said he definitely was willing to take a longer deal.

How do you know he wasn't? You don't. I don't.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Who does it? What 21 year old signs 6 year 3M contracts?

Players sign long term deals when they're young when they've established themselves enough to be comfortable with the AAV. If Chytil could get himself 6x4.5M right now, he'd probably take it but I don't think we wanted to take the gamble on him living up to it. That would be a very hefty (27M) commitment to make to a kid who hasn't broken out thus far. Sure, it's great if he does become a 2C, but if he stagnates as a 40 point middle-six player who isn't a full fledged center, everyone hates the contract. He's betting on himself to be worth much more in 2 years than he is today.

Why would we hate a solid middle 6 40 point center signed at that AAV? That's a good AAV

We go out and sign paat their prime 25 point 28 year olds to 6 year deals for 3.6 which means the majority of the deal is a giant unknown. Why would we dislike someone who has his prime ahead and already produces double the 6 year 3.6 M man?

Yet people all over this thread are trying to use "well they didn't want to take risks" as the excuse.

No. They did want to take risks...on other teams old players instead of on what they have in-house.

It's what these idiots have been doing for over a decade. It consistently leaves us stuck with other teams corpses and it leaves us having to trade away or pay idiotic big contracts like kreiders, Stepan, Callahan, etc when it's obvious they're a complete age risk. Gotta save that 1-2M on those initial UFA years so we can buy more Brad Richard's and Kevin shattenkirk corpses. How does the same team pay a young kreider 5 m for 4 years and an almost 30 year old kreider 6.5 for 6?

Our FO is and has been incompetently following the same dumbass blueprint for 15 years for everyone not name Lundqvist. It's annoying AF. Spend the extra 1-2M and lock SOMEONE up an extra 2 or 3 or 4 years in their prime instead of pissing it away on retirement home guys.

Or at least when a Stepan, kreider, etc get to those UFA years...instead of 4 or 5 M for 3 or 4 years...go 6 or 7 years for an extra M or 2 so the next contract isn't such a Sophie's choice

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Great deal. Was expecting just those numbers.

I don't understand the "why did you bridge him?!" camp. There is just no reason not to do so.

Chytil is 21 and this contract should determine if he's actually worth 4m/y or more or less.

 

[jay from jersey]

Drury with this deal without any single doubt proved that he is not competent to be a GM of a NHL team. No other good GM would have considered it. The — only — time it makes sense to give a kid a bridge deal is when a long term deal would have been tremendously expensive due to the player already having performed well or when a team simply has no cap room.

But you get what you deserve. How many of the reporters will question Drury tomorrow? It won’t even be a topic. Does the fans on Twitter question it? It’s obviously to complex for them. They love the “you have to earn it” argument, One Cup in 70 years. How long until the next?

the player doesn’t always want to sign the long term deal Ola, no doubt his agent is telling him, in 2 years you’ll still only be 23-24. Once your numbers take a large jump you’ll be paid a lot more.
Chytil isn’t Fox, far less proven, and your not talking about a 30,40,50 million dollar frontloaded deal for 7-8 seasons.
Chytil is betting that he’s going to play better for a serious raise, and Drury doesn’t have to tie up salary long term for an asset he might trade down the line.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Great deal. Was expecting just those numbers.

I don't understand the "why did you bridge him?!" camp. There is just no reason not to do so.

Chytil is 21 and this contract should determine if he's actually worth 4m/y or more or less.

The way rfa works is if you think someone has enormous ability or potential you give them a longer deal that makes their rfa years more expensive but then buys out 2, 3 or 4 Ufa years which would otherwise be extremely expensive and come with movement clauses and 6 or 7 years

I don't get people definitely saying there's NO reason. Look at the plethora of terrible old player contracts we keep handing out. Did you all somehow miss what just happened with buch? A bunch of us wanted him extended for longer too bc we saw the talent and saw him constantly improving We're still suffering the aftershock from Girardi, shattenkirk, Staal (had to lose a 2nd rounder). We just took on goodrow for SIX years. We went from kreider at 4 years 5 m to now 6 years 6.5.

This organization pisses itself when it comes to committing to its own talent until they're old as dirt

 

[mas0764]

The only way you sign Chytil long term right now would be if the Rangers envisioned him as a future top 6 center. You don't want to sign a long term deal (the team or him) to play 3rd line minutes again. It's getting to the point they either need to committ to him or be willing to include him in a trade isn't it? for better or worse.

If Chytil is not one of the long term top 6 centers then that means we likely need two more. That’s not great.

 

[brakeyawself]

If I was Chytil there is NO WAY I’m signing a 7 year deal right now. There is so much uncertainty with the cap and he hasn’t been given much playing time. I’d ask for 2 years.

That's Kind of how I feel also. I don't like the bridge deal as a Ranger fan. Would have much rather wrapped him up long term at a good price. But why would he want to right now? He knows how good he can be.

Relative to ATOI, he was very, very good last year. Whenever he's played with Panarin, he's looked like a legit top 6 center.

And most importantly, he's shown great progress every single year. I don't think there has been one season where he hasn't improved by leaps and bounds. Which is a great sign for future improvement.

Those saying "Chytil hasn't done anything", I disagree. Like what do you expect of him when he gets 5 minutes on a good line and then gets knocked back down? Hate the way Quinn managed the ice time last year and the lines. But Chytil has grown a ton relative to where he was a few years ago. And I see huge potential still. Legit top 6 potential as a C. The only concern I really have are his faceoffs, which can improve. But someone really should be forcing him to practice faceoffs like 12 hours a day every day until he becomes proficient or drops dead lol.

Anyway, stats aren't always the best signal of a players potential. Especially when you are being used in less than ideal situations and especially when the team clearly wants him working on his complete game.

Look at his 5x5 numbers. He's net positive in offense and defense. And he's one of the top 50 forwards in the NHL at even strength per 60. All the signs point to a player bound to go through the roof when given the proper opportunity. His PP numbers weren't great, but his PPTOI isn't exactly the ideal for putting up good PP totals. I think actually, he was our best 5x5 forwards, and our best 5x5 center relative to ATOI.

We all ready have one of our future top 2 centers on the team right now. His name is Filip Chytil.

2021 NY Rangers Player Report Card: Filip Chytil

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Wanted longer years. We give 6 to goodrow, we can't take a risk on locking someone up for lower salary in their prime instead of their prime retirement home years?

Why do we LOVE risking the old guys won't fall off (they ALWAYS do) but we refuse to risk signing a young guy bc we're worried he might not develop further?

The thing here is that you have to identify who to bridge and who to commit to long term. If you mess that up, you end up with a scenario like Brady Skjei.

I don't think Chytil has done enough to warrant long-term commitment.

 

[fm]

I agree, Chytil hasn't done much, but the Brady Skjei scenario was golden. Guy stinks it up for a year or two, but due to his past reputation, gets traded in his mid-20s for a mid-late first? I wish all our players who don't work out would bring first rounders.

 

[pld459666]

By the time Chytil "earns" a long term contract, its not going to be for less than market value at which point you just wasted an opportunity to get a 50+ point 2nd line center for 4+ years at 4.5 per.

If he compares favorably to Dvorak and will get better offensively, then a 6/7 year deal at 4.5 per was the right path forward.

Now, when he improves his game, he's going to look for, and rightfully so, a long term deal in the high 5's or low 6's

Its poor planning by this franchise

IMHO

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I have long advocated that we sign him to the Dvorak contract, but if the player wants to bet on his own upside, what can you do?