[brooks] What is Tony DeAngelo Going to Cost?

7. Tony DeAngelo?s goal at 19:17 of the third period on Saturday that made the score 6-4 may have seemed rather meaningless, but there is no such thing as a meaningless point to No. 77 if he gets to salary arbitration.

 

What do you think each point might be worth now in an arbitrator?s straight calculation ? $100,000, maybe?

 

DeAngelo, who was in essence told to wait his turn last summer before reluctantly signing a one-year contract for $925,000, is tied for third among NHL defensemen with 15 goal$ and is fourth with 53 point$.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/03/08/road-trip-is-chance-for-rangers-to-get-their-goalies-right/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

That one year deal is going to cost us an awful lot.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/08/road-trip-is-chance-for-rangers-to-get-their-goalies-right/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

 

It's an interesting time for him. Do you give him 4 years and take him to UFA? (I believe he's UFA at 29)

 

Do you buy UFA years? That can get pricey, based on one year.

 

Do you give him $5x2 and see what happens with the team? I still say, if you have Trouba and Fox (and are paying Trouba and potentially have to pay Fox in 2 years), you can't pay ADA. It's simply too much cash tied up on your right side.

It's an interesting time for him. Do you give him 4 years and take him to UFA? (I believe he's UFA at 29)

 

Do you buy UFA years? That can get pricey, based on one year.

 

Do you give him $5x2 and see what happens with the team? I still say, if you have Trouba and Fox (and are paying Trouba and potentially have to pay Fox in 2 years), you can't pay ADA. It's simply too much cash tied up on your right side.

 

Honestly, for exactly this reason, I think you just give him a one or two-year deal, likely in arbitration. Whatever that number is.

Isn't DeAngelo arbitration eligible?

I always breathe a sigh of relief when Staal eventually gets it to DeAngelo. Hopefully he's a part of the core of this team for the next 5 years. The Rangers would be smart to let it go to arbitration then lock him up if he continues to be a big part of their successes. Money wise, I really don't have any confidence that I would be close. 6.5 Million for 5 years.

Isn't DeAngelo arbitration eligible?

 

Yes.

Yes.

 

That might be a decent option, considering we'd have to spring for quite a bit in term and cap we don't have a ton of for next year, no?

It has to be an arb deal

It has to be an arb deal

 

This. Make a long term decision on him in a years time.

They need to sign him long term. Doesn't mean they have to keep him long term if they want to pivot or bulk up another position. Getting him locked up at a decent cap hit longer term makes him worth even more in 2 or 3 years if they choose to trade.

 

I always breathe a sigh of relief when Staal eventually gets it to DeAngelo. Hopefully he's a part of the core of this team for the next 5 years. The Rangers would be smart to let it go to arbitration then lock him up if he continues to be a big part of their successes. Money wise, I really don't have any confidence that I would be close. 6.5 Million for 5 years.

 

I don't agree about arbitration, unless his demands are too high. I do agree with a deal along the lines of 6.5 x 5.

This. Make a long term decision on him in a years time.

 

Wouldn't you want 2 years, though?

 

I'd really want them to see what he does when he's not playing for a contract before committing to a long-term deal.

I don't want to go long term on him simply because there are a bunch of guys in the system who are getting ready to make the jump tot he NHL in the next couple of years. Signing him long term blocks someone from coming up. The main issue with long term also is any NTC/NMC that would be given.

Wouldn't you want 2 years, though?

 

I'd really want them to see what he does when he's not playing for a contract before committing to a long-term deal.

 

I'm agree with Pete here on this one. We have a metric ass load of talent coming up in the system on defense, and DeAngelo is seriously a weak link defensively. Putting the puck in the net has not been an issue for this team. Keeping it out HAS!

 

I wanna see another year of ADA before I go spending a ton long term.

 

We have some cap issues for next season as well, so it may not be the opportune time to go making any big money deals.

I'm agree with Pete here on this one. We have a metric ass load of talent coming up in the system on defense, and DeAngelo is seriously a weak link defensively. Putting the puck in the net has not been an issue for this team. Keeping it out HAS!

 

I wanna see another year of ADA before I go spending a ton long term.

 

We have some cap issues for next season as well, so it may not be the opportune time to go making any big money deals.

 

That's why I want a 1 year arb deal. Pete wants 2 years.

 

I just want to be as flexible as possible, for next year but in particular when the cap opens up for us the following season. I feel like with one more year of Tony, and one more year of seeing how the prospects develop, we'll have enough info the make the right call. I don't really see the need for a 2 year arb deal, but maybe I'm thinking about it in the wrong way.

Good time to sell high. Doesn’t make any sense to make a big financial commitment to a one dimensional Dman with so many replacements in the pipeline.

It's an interesting time for him. Do you give him 4 years and take him to UFA? (I believe he's UFA at 29)

 

Do you buy UFA years? That can get pricey, based on one year.

 

Do you give him $5x2 and see what happens with the team? I still say, if you have Trouba and Fox (and are paying Trouba and potentially have to pay Fox in 2 years), you can't pay ADA. It's simply too much cash tied up on your right side.

 

I can't see him taking anything less than Skjei's 5.25m cap hit.

That's why I want a 1 year arb deal. Pete wants 2 years.

 

I just want to be as flexible as possible, for next year but in particular when the cap opens up for us the following season. I feel like with one more year of Tony, and one more year of seeing how the prospects develop, we'll have enough info the make the right call. I don't really see the need for a 2 year arb deal, but maybe I'm thinking about it in the wrong way.

 

I gotcha, Gravy..... I wanted to deal him at the deadline this season, but came off that idea knowing that we could go to arbitration with him for next season. 2 years wouldn't be bad either, but I want it to be clear sailing after all those heavy duty contracts and buyouts come off the books after next season.

 

I think we could still get a good return for Tony D at next year's trade deadline and continue to build this monster!

 

..also after reading the post about K'Andre Miller, we may have make room for him as well. That kid looks promising.

I gotcha, Gravy..... I wanted to deal him at the deadline this season, but came off that idea knowing that we could go to arbitration with him for next season. 2 years wouldn't be bad either, but I want it to be clear sailing after all those heavy duty contracts and buyouts come off the books after next season.

 

I think we could still get a good return for Tony D at next year's trade deadline and continue to build this monster!

 

..also after reading the post about K'Andre Miller, we may have make room for him as well. That kid looks promising.

 

At this point, I'm not sure trading him now is the best option.

 

Miller is still a ways a way from being an NHL defender, or at least a reliable one.

In addition, our wonderful development program in Hartford has Hajek struggling, and Rykov being scratched.

On pace for 65 points, and Rangers fans go:

 

- "Make him prove himself next year", after saying "Make him prove himself this year"

 

- "He's blocking defensemen in the pipeline"

 

- "Trade him"

On pace for 65 points, and Rangers fans go:

 

- "Make him prove himself next year", after saying "Make him prove himself this year"

 

- "He's blocking defensemen in the pipeline"

 

- "Trade him"

 

I'm saying none of these things. Take him to arbitration because there are no real comparable deals to rely on and because I don't think you can afford to lock up the entire right side of the D long-term and not lose someone for it.

That's why I want a 1 year arb deal. Pete wants 2 years.

 

I just want to be as flexible as possible, for next year but in particular when the cap opens up for us the following season. I feel like with one more year of Tony, and one more year of seeing how the prospects develop, we'll have enough info the make the right call. I don't really see the need for a 2 year arb deal, but maybe I'm thinking about it in the wrong way.

2 years just gives you a peek at a year where he's not playing for a contract. That's really the only difference between mine and your thinking.

At this point, I'm not sure trading him now is the best option.

 

Miller is still a ways a way from being an NHL defender, or at least a reliable one.

In addition, our wonderful development program in Hartford has Hajek struggling, and Rykov being scratched.

 

Next year's deadline is the option I was thinking, Josh man! Not so much now.

 

On pace for 65 points, and Rangers fans go:

 

- "Make him prove himself next year", after saying "Make him prove himself this year"

 

- "He's blocking defensemen in the pipeline"

 

- "Trade him"

 

We end up trading guys like Ryan Graves because guys like Tony D are here. Graves is currently in the running for a Norris Trophy and leads the league in +/- at (+43).

 

We did get Chris Bigras for him though...I think Bigras walks Gorton's dog now :rofl:

Arbitrators definitely lean towards one-year deals. Last year five of six cases resulted in one-year contracts and one in a two-year deal. That puts ADA in the driver's seat. If the Rangers are not ponying up something big, he'll get a pretty nice salary for a year and UFA status at age 25. Tough cap issues. Buy outs of Nos. 30, 18 and/or 42 offer slight relief but mostly kick the can down the road for a year. ADA is a priority over Strome, which bodes poorly for the latter.

Considering the Rangers are going to have $25 million plus coming off the books after next season, I would think it'd be best to kick this can down the road another season, and go to arbitration with DeAngelo:

 

Three things can happen at that rate:

1. DeAngelo gets another season; a further "look-see" in his short career thus far. (Sample size is still rather small)

2. Rangers will be free of Staal, Smith, Hank and Shatty's tags and be a lot more free to spend some coin on players they NEED

3. They can also trade him as a rental at next season's deadline if all goes to shit and they are sellers.

 

The question really is: What kind of deal is he going to get in arbitration?