Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 105

Thread: Rangers Re-Sign [F] Derek Stepan to 6-Year/$39M Extension; $6.5M AAV

  1. #21
    Kreidurrr BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,636
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Rome 2.0 View Post
    Not yet, but I'd imagine he'l have a combination of both. Likely similar to the Girardi/Staal contracts where it's a full no-move in the first three years followed by a partial no-trade in the final three. Would explain why he's coming in below $7M annually. NMC/NTC are a form of currency in negotiations.
    I'd imagine it would be more of the reverse. He's considerably younger than Girardi and Staal so there's less of that early risk of being dealt. Those last 3 years are probably when he'd get dealt if it were to happen. That's when he'd probably want to be protected.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Flynn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    1,492
    Rep Power
    21
    6.5 was as good a # as we could have hope for in all honestly.. Glad its done.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Midget Division Thump23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,883
    Rep Power
    19
    Great deal. I think people seem to forget how shitty the team looked without him in the lineup to start the season.

  4. #24
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    81,019
    Rep Power
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew a Penalty View Post
    I'd imagine it would be more of the reverse. He's considerably younger than Girardi and Staal so there's less of that early risk of being dealt. Those last 3 years are probably when he'd get dealt if it were to happen. That's when he'd probably want to be protected.
    Maybe, yeah. I'm just saying, I doubt he's getting a full No-Move across the deal. But he's probably getting it for part of it.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, “I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.”"
    - Christopher Hitchens

  5. #25
    Junior Member Skyfern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0
    As expected. Fair deal.

  6. #26
    Kreidurrr BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,636
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Rome 2.0 View Post
    Maybe, yeah. I'm just saying, I doubt he's getting a full No-Move across the deal. But he's probably getting it for part of it.
    Definitely not a no-movement clause. Maybe nothing or at maximum a limited for the first 3 years followed by a full no-trade clause or an no-movement

  7. #27
    Coaching Fail Pee-Wee Division GordonGecko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    651
    Rep Power
    14
    Good job by Gorto

  8. #28
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,062
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rome 2.0 View Post
    Not yet, but I'd imagine he'l have a combination of both. Likely similar to the Girardi/Staal contracts where it's a full no-move in the first three years followed by a partial no-trade in the final three. Would explain why he's coming in below $7M annually. NMC/NTC are a form of currency in negotiations.
    Pete asked in the thread that closed, what I thought of the G and Staal deal. I do not think they are good deals for the Rangers because of the term,especially given their age. But worse is the NMC/NTC. Especially during that length of term.

    Rome, I seriously hope you are wrong about the NMC/NTC. Every Ranger fan here should SERIOUSLY hope you are wrong. This was Gorton's big chance to set a new precedent. If the entire contract term is encumbered with some type of no trade, then every long term contract will have it. If he was able to establish a new precedent, then he will always be able to point to Steps and say... we just gave him 1 year NMC and 1 year NTC.

    This is important.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,062
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew a Penalty View Post
    Definitely not a no-movement clause. Maybe nothing or at maximum a limited for the first 3 years followed by a full no-trade clause or an no-movement
    That would be insane. The protection should be given to the player in the early years to discourage basically a sign and trade type scenario. If the Rangers start giving out either NMC or NTC years on the back end of the contracts, it will be horrible for the teams competitiveness.

  10. #30
    Former Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Cash or Czech?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    16,366
    Rep Power
    62
    When was the last time in the NHL there was a sign-and-trade scenario? This isn't basketball.

    Also, Stepan would want a NTC when he's most likely to get traded, which is the final two years of the deal. Giving him a limited NTC saves us a few bucks and still allows us to move him when he's 30 or 31, even if he can say no to a certain number of teams. It's a precedent in the NHL, not just our organization, and it's not going to change with a single GM turnover. There'd have to be serious CBA changes in order for the clauses to massively adjust.
    Last edited by Cash or Czech?; 07-27-2015 at 10:42 AM.

  11. #31
    gangsta member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,696
    Rep Power
    57
    This is perfect
    __________________________________

  12. #32
    Kreidurrr BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,636
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    That would be insane. The protection should be given to the player in the early years to discourage basically a sign and trade type scenario. If the Rangers start giving out either NMC or NTC years on the back end of the contracts, it will be horrible for the teams competitiveness.
    Stepan doesn't really have to worry about sign and trades the way Girardi and Staal would. Stepan signed his new contract at 25, Girardi and Staal at 30 and 28 respectively. Their NMCs switch to NTCs at ages 33 and 31. Stepan's contract will have ended by the time he reaches that age. The midpoint of his contract where I suggested he switch to a NMC? He'd be 28. What exactly is insane about that? Who declines at 28 that suddenly you need to worry about tossing them between the ages of 30-31?

  13. #33
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    7
    hopefully a healthy 6 years

  14. #34
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,062
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Cash or Czech? View Post
    When was the last time in the NHL there was a sign-and-trade scenario? This isn't basketball.
    Czech I get it. I used shorthand to convey a point without having to elaborate. I'll elaborate.

    The justification and idea behind the no trade clause in general is to reflect that a team and player just agreed to a marriage for x years. The assumption is the player wants to be here and the team wants him here. Ideally, the contract is not being made to secure the asset so to prevent him from hitting the free market, so then you can go and trade him for other assets to any location the team wishes.

    Therefore, to protect the player who no longer controls his location's destiny, he gets reasonable protections for a few years. Because there is currently a MUTUAL desire to work together, the no trade language should apply to the nearer term first. No one can as accurately predict what might change 4-6 years down the road, so the protections should be less restrictive or fade away over time.

  15. #35
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    81,019
    Rep Power
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    Pete asked in the thread that closed, what I thought of the G and Staal deal. I do not think they are good deals for the Rangers because of the term,especially given their age. But worse is the NMC/NTC. Especially during that length of term.

    Rome, I seriously hope you are wrong about the NMC/NTC. Every Ranger fan here should SERIOUSLY hope you are wrong. This was Gorton's big chance to set a new precedent. If the entire contract term is encumbered with some type of no trade, then every long term contract will have it. If he was able to establish a new precedent, then he will always be able to point to Steps and say... we just gave him 1 year NMC and 1 year NTC.

    This is important.
    This is the new NHL as well. NTC/NMC are a type of currency in a term-capped era where AAV is still just as important, but can no longer be artificially lowered by tacking on dummy, back-diving years to contracts.

    So you give to get. You want a player through his prime at a flexible average, eating UFA years along the way? No problem. For the cost of trade control. If I'm the agent, it's easy. My client is willing to work with you if you are willing to work with them. Negotiate in good faith and we'll return the favor. But I want trade control regardless. My client wants to be a Ranger and wants to make sure he remains one should you change your mind a year or two into this deal.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, “I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.”"
    - Christopher Hitchens

  16. #36
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,062
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew a Penalty View Post
    Stepan doesn't really have to worry about sign and trades the way Girardi and Staal would. Stepan signed his new contract at 25, Girardi and Staal at 30 and 28 respectively. Their NMCs switch to NTCs at ages 33 and 31. Stepan's contract will have ended by the time he reaches that age. The midpoint of his contract where I suggested he switch to a NMC? He'd be 28. What exactly is insane about that? Who declines at 28 that suddenly you need to worry about tossing them between the ages of 30-31?
    Hopefully my other post explains/answers this. For additional clarification... What is insane is to draw up a contract that is more restrictive, regarding movement, in the later years. As you noted, G and Staal's contracts get less restrictive. So should every contract.

  17. #37
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    81,019
    Rep Power
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    Hopefully my other post explains/answers this. For additional clarification... What is insane is to draw up a contract that is more restrictive, regarding movement, in the later years. As you noted, G and Staal's contracts get less restrictive. So should every contract.
    Agreed.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, “I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.”"
    - Christopher Hitchens

  18. #38
    Senior Member Junior Division
    ThirtyONE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    9,274
    Rep Power
    59
    Gorton wraps up an impressive summer. Time to get to work!
    FIRE VIGNEAULT

  19. #39
    Kreidurrr BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,636
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    Hopefully my other post explains/answers this. For additional clarification... What is insane is to draw up a contract that is more restrictive, regarding movement, in the later years. As you noted, G and Staal's contracts get less restrictive. So should every contract.
    I read your other post and it didn't really solve anything for me.

    You're comparing Girardi and Staal to Stepan, but their contracts end and run through completely different parts of their careers. Girardi's runs until the end of his career. Staal's likely as well. Stepan's runs through the end of his prime. There's a reason protection on those contracts would be different which you seem to neglect despite my explanation. Stepan is going to want more protection as he's exiting his prime. The likelihood of the team trading him in the next 3 years is a lot slimmer than in the 3 following that.

    I don't agree with handing out of clauses, but for Stepan's side it makes a lot more sense to be as protected as possible especially in the back end.

  20. #40
    Former Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Cash or Czech?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    16,366
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    Czech I get it. I used shorthand to convey a point without having to elaborate. I'll elaborate.

    The justification and idea behind the no trade clause in general is to reflect that a team and player just agreed to a marriage for x years. The assumption is the player wants to be here and the team wants him here. Ideally, the contract is not being made to secure the asset so to prevent him from hitting the free market, so then you can go and trade him for other assets to any location the team wishes.

    Therefore, to protect the player who no longer controls his location's destiny, he gets reasonable protections for a few years. Because there is currently a MUTUAL desire to work together, the no trade language should apply to the nearer term first. No one can as accurately predict what might change 4-6 years down the road, so the protections should be less restrictive or fade away over time.
    I expanded on my post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Cash or Czech? View Post
    Also, Stepan would want a NTC when he's most likely to get traded, which is the final two years of the deal. Giving him a limited NTC saves us a few bucks and still allows us to move him when he's 30 or 31, even if he can say no to a certain number of teams. It's a precedent in the NHL, not just our organization, and it's not going to change with a single GM turnover. There'd have to be serious CBA changes in order for the clauses to massively adjust.
    The protection for Stepan is that he's better than whatever we would get in exchange for him in a trade at this point. Protection lies in the realistic time frame a player like him will most likely be traded, which is when he is approaching UFA status. This little protection incentivizes Stepan because he can choose a location he would prefer to play in. He is in his prime now and there is no indication or reason that the Rangers are going to move him while he is such an integral part of the roster.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •