Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIX

[GoAwayPanarin]

Man that seems like a lot coming from a team that is still trying to get a handle on what exactly it has (or doesn't).

Maybe, but I think we can all agree that we know what we don’t have, and that’s a top 4 RHD who isn’t 1 foot 2.

In a perfect world, I’d love to nab Rasmus Andersson out of Calgary, but that’s going to be tough.

 

[Off Sides]

I'm not always looking for a bargain so much as simply fair value.

Fair value is not only giving him a ~top 10 cap hit league wide for defenders, but also trading a bunch of assets to do so?

 

[offdacrossbar]

That speaks to the personnel currently being run out as defensemen as opposed to Trouba actually being a top defenseman.

correct on the first point but that does not mean your second point is valid.

 

[True Blue]

what exactly does a 25 yr old trouba and shatty have in common

seriously ?

Shattenkirk is injured now, Trouba has been seemingly injured his career. Shattenkirk has NTC/NMC clauses in his contract which make him unmoveable. Trouba is as well. Shattenkirk was paid and brought here to anchor the defense. So too would Trouba. Shattenkirk has not been able to perform to expectations and is now facing a backlash. Trouba has performed to expectations, but those expectations are below what would be the expectations that would come when one considers the assets that will be needed to be given up and the dollars spent. Trouba ends up the poster child of another bad contract and a player not living up to expectations.

 

[Riche16]

That speaks to the personnel currently being run out as defensemen as opposed to Trouba actually being a top defenseman.

Exactly.

Of course this defense is a mess. It’s made up of up and comers and has beens.

Completely a work in progress.

This is like saying the house is unlivable because we are in the process of tearing it down and rebuilding from the foundation. It’s not supposed to be where we lay our heads ATM

 

[True Blue]

correct on the first point but that does not mean your second point is valid.

Is he a top pairing defenseman right now?

When his future deal will probably be $7-$8m with NTC/NMC, will he be a top pairing anchor of a defense then?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

What I just don't understand is why folks are making pronouncements on a player absent the cost to acquire that player. I totally get the reservations about acquiring Trouba... if we're giving up a top prospect and/or 1st round pick(s) to get him. Total non-starter from me. But if you can essentially swap Skjei (with a small add) for him? That, conversely, is a no-brainer from my POV. Start with those two poles and then you've got a spectrum in the middle.

 

[Off Sides]

trouba defensively is worlds better than any other defender on roster now.

25 yrs old. 50 point guy. plus player plays pp1 and pk1

rochester minn kid. fits the mold

hes a PERFECT fit for this team and exactly the kind of move that fit this rebuild.

again, hes easily the best defender on the roster and makes this defense better fast.

and hes out there. you gotta kick the tires.

until you fix this defense, 5 panarins won't make a hill of beans.

Defensively I agree he is worlds better,

Offensively on the Rangers, I just don't see him being the same as he is on the Jets unless we are talking about his playoffs.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

trouba defensively is worlds better than any other defender on roster now.

25 yrs old. 50 point guy. plus player plays pp1 and pk1

rochester minn kid. fits the mold

hes a PERFECT fit for this team and exactly the kind of move that fit this rebuild.

again, hes easily the best defender on the roster and makes this defense better fast.

and hes out there. you gotta kick the tires.

until you fix this defense, 5 panarins won't make a hill of beans.

I don’t really want to wade into a get him/don’t get him argument, but I don’t think Trouba would be a first unit powerplay guy here and that’ll skew him points/minutes/worth

 

[Mac n Gs]

I think that he fits the time line, but am very worried about bringing in someone who has trouble staying on the ice and paying him top dollars and a contract with NTC/NMC to be something he has never been is a recipe for disaster.

The durability and contract status are very valid concerns, and I tend to learn towards agreeing with them with being cautious.

My point was about was more about being hesitant about having the opportunity to acquire a player in his age range just because we aren’t sure what our prospects are just yet. We still have an age 24-27 age group that is leading the older part of this core, and if you can add a prime talent to it for a fair cost, it should be explored.

 

[TheTakedown]

25 is only 5 years from 30, guy might as well retire now.

Already starting fossilization process. Trade one early over year late. Need more picks. Gorton doesn't have elite talent. Elite talent wins games. After this season Gorton go find Elite talent. No Free Agents.

 

[Tawnos]

Fair value is not only giving him a ~top 10 cap hit league wide for defenders, but also trading a bunch of assets to do so?

Comparing cap hits is not the way to look at this. We should all be looking at cap hit percentage at time of signing when looking at comparables. So, if you're thinking $8m, that's going to be about 9.6% of the cap, which would make him more like 15-20 among D. That's fine for a top-pairing D who isn't at the top of the league.

 

[GAGLine]

I have proposed trading for Trouba, but I'm not inclined to give up more than Skjei to get him. We have more depth on the left side and can afford to let him go to get a quality defender on the right side. If Winnipeg wants significantly more the Skjei for Trouba, forget it. Skjei is cost controlled at a manageable number for the next 5 years. Trouba is a pending RFA who may take the team to arbitration, get a 1 year deal, and then walk. Both players are 25, so I don't see that as a problem regarding our timeline. Trouba will be 27 and in his prime when we are ready to compete again. A 7 year deal would take him to 32.

If Trouba isn't the guy, maybe we look at someone like Ristolainen. Or if not him, then maybe there's a deal to be made for a prospect who is NHL ready. Could we pry Cal Foote out of Tampa if we take Callahan and give them back their 2nd round pick? Maybe not, but it's worth asking. Is there any chance of getting someone like Carlo?

 

[Off Sides]

Comparing cap hits is not the way to look at this. We should all be looking at cap hit percentage at time of signing when looking at comparables. So, if you're thinking $8m, that's going to be about 9.6% of the cap, which would make him more like 15-20 among D. That's fine for a top-pairing D who isn't at the top of the league.

How do you know what the correct cap hit percentage is to use on anyone? Just because others signed at a similar percentage does not make them good contracts.

And who has a competitive cap advantage, the team who has say Jones at a way lesser cap hit, or the team that has Trouba at a higher one?

 

[Tawnos]

How do you know what the correct cap hit percentage is to use on anyone? Just because others signed at a similar percentage does not make them good contracts.

And who has a competitive cap advantage, the team who has say Jones at a way lesser cap hit, or the team that has Trouba at a higher one?

What kind of question is that? I'm not going to explain the concept of market value to you.

The team that has the player they signed for a way lesser cap hit off their ELC will have a greater competitive advantage in every single situation, no matter what caliber of player we're talking about. That's why bridge deals are becoming more and more rare.

 

[Off Sides]

I have proposed trading for Trouba, but I'm not inclined to give up more than Skjei to get him. We have more depth on the left side and can afford to let him go to get a quality defender on the right side. If Winnipeg wants significantly more the Skjei for Trouba, forget it. Skjei is cost controlled at a manageable number for the next 5 years. Trouba is a pending RFA who may take the team to arbitration, get a 1 year deal, and then walk. Both players are 25, so I don't see that as a problem regarding our timeline. Trouba will be 27 and in his prime when we are ready to compete again. A 7 year deal would take him to 32.

If Trouba isn't the guy, maybe we look at someone like Ristolainen. Or if not him, then maybe there's a deal to be made for a prospect who is NHL ready. Could we pry Cal Foote out of Tampa if we take Callahan and give them back their 2nd round pick? Maybe not, but it's worth asking. Is there any chance of getting someone like Carlo?

I agree on the premise that a Skjei for Trouba makes some sense from both the age and swapping LD for RD , I'm not sure the ~2 or 3M in cap hit beyond Skjei gets the Rangers the upgrade most seem to think Trouba would be.

 

[NYR Viper]

The question is, does Trouba help this team compete and are his contract demands in line with what he brings? If he’s asking for a 6-7 year deal at $6-7m per season, I’d say yes. More than that and it’s a no go. This organization needs to start identifying the right young players to help build around. If Zibanejad is part of that new core, than a guy like Trouba makes sense. Even if he is just a very solid #2 or #3 as a right defenseman his contract will not be an albatross.

The main issue here is this team has too much money invested into the wrong players on defense + Hank. If Gorton feels he can start remedying some of that this offseason then Trouba, DEPENDING ON THE PRICE, makes sense.

I’m still okay with Skjei for Trouba + Conditional 1st if Trouba walks as UFA.

 

[Off Sides]

What kind of question is that? I'm not going to explain the concept of market value to you.

Market value, your version seems to say things are priced correctly, so a continuation of those percentages is correct.

My version, once you start talking about UFA years without RFA years in the same contracts driving the cap hit down, all the market provides is overpriced.

If Trouba on his current cap percentage represents good market value, what does a significant rise in his cap percentage represent?

Why do the Rangers move players who are pending UFAs? I'd assume because they do not feel their value with a higher cap hit or cap hit percentage would equate to good value even if those next contracts fall within similar cap percentages to their peers.

 

[ETTER DE]

trouba is a much better player than im hearing here.

he would instantly be our best overall defender by a lot. hes young and he can play 25 mins a game.

this defense is a horror show. plain and simple.

right now we have maybe 2 2nd pair guys. 76 and 77. the rest are 3rd pair defender types, vets or specialty type guys.

we need a true top pair defender to anchor this defense until the kids are ready to go.

trouba would seem to me to be a guy who checks many boxes both in terms of talent and need.

I do not know enough about Trouba to say he is the guy Rangers should go for. Might be the best option. But the rest of your post is spot on.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

That seems like a bit too much for Trouba, no?

Young #1 RHD? What do you think your going to give up?

 

[NYR Viper]

Young #1 RHD? What do you think your going to give up?

He’s 1 year from UFA

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

He’s 1 year from UFA

That I did not know. Then may be a Kreider for Trouba swap makes sense with adds on either side. May be allow each side a negotiation window with the players.

 

[offdacrossbar]

trouba has long been rumored to want out of the peg. hes a usa kid with a great resume. fits the nyr mold to a T.

if a deal gets done, expect to hear that hes been on our radar for a long time.

i think that kind of move makes a lot of sense for us right now where we are

if its a deal built around skjei or kreider and trouba then theres some there there....

skjei might need a change and jake definitely seems to be on his way out.

kreider seems like a good fit there on that roster.

i think a deal can be done.

 

[eco's bones]

That these names are coming up kind of tells me the Rangers aren't looking to be a bottom feeder team next season. That they are going to go out and try to fix an area or two on the team while also hoping that the kids this year (along with Kakko or Hughes) improve next year.

 

[Tawnos]

Market value, your version seems to say things are priced correctly, so a continuation of those percentages is correct.

My version, once you start talking about UFA years without RFA years in the same contracts driving the cap hit down, all the market provides is overpriced.

If Trouba on his current cap percentage represents good market value, what does a significant rise in his cap percentage represent?

Why do the Rangers move players who are pending UFAs? I'd assume because they do not feel their value with a higher cap hit or cap hit percentage would equate to good value even if those next contracts fall within similar cap percentages to their peers.

You assume 100% incorrectly. The Rangers move pending UFAs because they're likely to be diminished players by the time the team is ready to compete. They don't do anything to help the team in their next window. A competitive NYR team would've been happy to pay McDonagh what he got from Tampa, what Hayes and Zuccarello are going to receive on the market this year, etc.

Trouba on his current cap percentage represents good market value on an RFA deal, but not only aren't the standards for his UFA years the same, but he's a better player today than when he signed that 1-year deal.

I don't have a version of market value. Market value is just what teams are willing to pay for players of a certain caliber when accounting for player vs team leverage.