confirmed: Rangers Re-Sign Filip Chytil to 2-Year/$4.6M Extension; $2.3M AAV

Why pay that now when you can trade him for a 2nd rounder later when you cant afford the 6-7

 

Fair bridge deal, but to me it's a missed opportunity.

Just reference this thread for when Drury trades him two Summers from now to San Jose for a 5-6 defenseman who has "grit" and "is tough to play against" and a third round pick.

Why pay that now when you can trade him for a 2nd rounder later when you cant afford the 6-7

 

Fair bridge deal, but to me it's a missed opportunity.

Because there's no real guarantee he'll hit the 6-7 bracket. Even if you look at the nitty-gritty model projections, he projects as a top-nine player (read: third-liner) with the potential to break into a second-line role.

Because there's no real guarantee he'll hit the 6-7 bracket. Even if you look at the nitty-gritty model projections, he projects as a top-nine player (read: third-liner) with the potential to break into a second-line role.

That's true, but there's a high percentage he hits a 4-5M AAV valuation as a player. The odds are great that you will either be paying a fair value for his worth or be paying less. Taking some calculated risk gets you Lindholm contracts.

That's true, but there's a high percentage he hits a 4-5M AAV valuation as a player. The odds are great that you will either be paying a fair value for his worth or be paying less. Taking some calculated risk gets you Lindholm contracts.

Right, and I'm OK with that risk, becuase it's a two-year "loss" if he continues his improvement and lands in that zone. I'm learning from the Skjei debacale and employing the Lamoriello clause: if you have time, use it. I'd rather pay for certainty, even at a higher price point, than promise, because promise has a higher risk of failure.

Right, and I'm OK with that risk, becuase it's a two-year "loss" if he continues his improvement and lands in that zone. I'm learning from the Skjei debacale and employing the Lamoriello clause: if you have time, use it. I'd rather pay for certainty, even at a higher price point, than promise, because promise has a higher risk of failure.

I would argue that the Skjei contract indicates that locking down Chytil for 4-5 years at a slightly higher AAV is the smarter play(than what he just signed).

Rangers signed Skjei to that 6 year 5.25 million AAV contract hoping that he would improve with more minutes and a bigger role. Against conventional wisdom, he regressed a little bit and they were able to flip the contract for a 1st round pick that they used for Braden Schneider. Besides for the regression in Skjei's game(which they would have likely experienced signing him to a 3-3.5 million bridge deal) how did the Rangers lose on that bet?

Essentially time costs money to your point.

Like Strome, Buchevich and DeAngelo before him, Chytil presents the typical dilemma: if he doesn't develop over the next two years, he will have no value either on our team or in a trade. If he does develop, we will no longer be able to afford him, and because he will be due a raise, we won't get much for him (ala Buchnevich).

Oh, I disagree. He's already a half point a game center. If he stalls, someone will see the value, especially since his contract expires in the year we expect the cap to go up.

Yeah, this doesnt really make sense.

 

If Chytil now continue to progress and they'll be forced to dump him (like with Buch) because there's just not enough cap space to pay him what he deserves.

 

If they went for something like 4x3.5m, worst case they trade him (maybe with some retention) after a year or two. Best case he progresses into a really good player and they have him on the cheap for a few seasons.

 

If we want any "good contracts" they need to take some chances. Can't just bridge everyone untill they have proven that they're good enough, but at the same time prices themselves out.

They must still feel burned from Skjei. The second the ink dried on that contract, the kid stunk.

They must still feel burned from Skjei. The second the ink dried on that contract, the kid stunk.

It happens, but as I articulated above you can argue that they came out ahead and that he may likely have regressed if they signed him to a bridge deal. He is fine as a 2nd pair defenseman in Caroline, Skjei was just miscast as a 1st pair LD.

They must still feel burned from Skjei. The second the ink dried on that contract, the kid stunk.

It happens, but as I articulated above you can argue that they came out ahead and that he may likely have regressed if they signed him to a bridge deal. He is fine as a 2nd pair defenseman in Caroline, Skjei was just miscast as a 1st pair LD.

They paid Skjei ahead of time to save money thinking he was going to develop into a top pairing LD based off of his draft pedigree and an outstanding rookie year. Moreover, it isn’t as if they paid him top pairing money.

He got paid more like a 2nd pairing guy… which is what he is.

They just overestimated him.

Skjei should be a lesson when it comes to Miller, who has already shown that his trajectory may not be one way up.

Agreed.

This is why it’s usually better to utilize the bridge deal whenever possible.

It happens, but as I articulated above you can argue that they came out ahead and that he may likely have regressed if they signed him to a bridge deal. He is fine as a 2nd pair defenseman in Caroline, Skjei was just miscast as a 1st pair LD.

he should have been developed as a shut down guy, but he put up offensive numbers the year before he came to NY. And AV isn't going to help your defensive game.

Skjei isn't a good example. Even though he didn't pan out like we hoped, as a top pairing, he is still on a fairish market value contract. Additionally, they got a 1st for him. It was a winning deal to lock him up long term, just not a home run like they may have expected.

Don't need a home run with Chytil for it to have been worth going 4-6 years.

It happens, but as I articulated above you can argue that they came out ahead and that he may likely have regressed if they signed him to a bridge deal. He is fine as a 2nd pair defenseman in Caroline, Skjei was just miscast as a 1st pair LD.

Oh I agree. I think you have to know when to take that risk. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm a Chytil guy. I think he's going to really get it together and seriously change people's minds about just how good he can be/is. Hopefully that happens here.

Oh I agree. I think you have to know when to take that risk. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm a Chytil guy. I think he's going to really get it together and seriously change people's minds about just how good he can be/is. Hopefully that happens here.

well yeah, but if it does, he's gone in two years anyway. Thats the problem here.

The only players you give long-term deals to or no brainers, you bridge everybody else.

Chytil isn't a no-brainer. He's a "I don't know what you are and you're gonna have to show me".

If he blows up next season, extend him the following January.

The only players you give long-term deals to or no brainers, you bridge everybody else.

 

Chytil isn't a no-brainer. He's a "I don't know what you are and you're gonna have to show me".

 

If he blows up next season, extend him the following January.

I agree with this. I honestly still have no clue what Chytil really is. I don't think he's a center just because of his defensive deficiencies. He could be a wing but I guess I haven't seen enough of him there to really know if he'd be completely effective there. I also don't know if he'd fill the scoresheet up enough to be in the top 6 and which point we fall back to his defensive deficiencies. I do know that if he played on a different team (at this point in time) I wouldn't be all that concerned about him and I'd be hoping that our top line was matching up against him.

The only players you give long-term deals to or no brainers, you bridge everybody else.

 

Chytil isn't a no-brainer. He's a "I don't know what you are and you're gonna have to show me".

 

If he blows up next season, extend him the following January.

That's also how you end up not being able to sign players when they "show you". Buch this season, Stromer is next, Chytil the season after...

I get it with Chytil and its probably the right decision, Im just saying at some point they need to take some "chances" and try to get someone on a bargain deal. I hope they have a plan with all the RFA's coming up (Kakko, Kravtsov, Shesterkin, Miller, Laf).

That's also how you end up not being able to sign players when they "show you". Buch this season, Stromer is next, Chytil the season after...

 

I get it with Chytil and its probably the right decision, Im just saying at some point they need to take some "chances" and try to get someone on a bargain deal. I hope they have a plan with all the RFA's coming up (Kakko, Kravtsov, Shesterkin, Miller, Laf).

Chytil will be 24 when this new deal ends. Make the decision then.

Buch is a 50 point player who they didn't want to have to pay for a career year at 26 (buying UFA years).

 

Chytil will be 24 when this new deal ends. Make the decision then.

Buch was a 50 point player when they bridged him two years ago. That was a missed opportunity to lock him up long term. His trajectory was up every year. Then he put up 55 and 70 point paces in those 2 years since, while entering his prime, and improved in other facets of the game. Now they couldn't afford him long term. Might be different if they gave him something like a 4-5x4.5m instead of 2x3.25m.

Strome is very likely to be the next victim, though he was/is a harder read at the time because he floated a long as a bottom 6 player for so long before popping the year before the bridge.

Chytil's production has been trending up every year despite stagnating ice time. He's only 21 and a pretty big dude getting bigger. The downside to locking him up longer was minimal. I suppose the flip side is that may have not been the Rangers' choice. Chytil maybe only wanted a short deal.

Buch was a 50 point player when they bridged him two years ago. That was a missed opportunity to lock him up long term. His trajectory was up every year. Then he put up 55 and 70 point paces in those 2 years since, while entering his prime, and improved in other facets of the game. Now they couldn't afford him long term. Might be different if they gave him something like a 4-5x4.5m instead of 2x3.25m.

 

Strome is very likely to be the next victim, though he was/is a harder read at the time because he floated a long as a bottom 6 player for so long before popping the year before the bridge.

 

Chytil's production has been trending up every year despite stagnating ice time. He's only 21 and a pretty big dude getting bigger. The downside to locking him up longer was minimal. I suppose the flip side is that may have not been the Rangers' choice. Chytil maybe only wanted a short deal.

That's the danger of bridge deals in the same way that overpaying on what should have been a bridge can also come back and bite you.

If I'm Chytil, I don't want the 4 year deal. I want to renegotiate the terms while eligible for arbitration as an RFA in a year where escrow is getting cut by 67% and the cap might actually be going up.

If I'm Drury, I don't want 4 years because I have no fucking idea if Chytil is Zibanejad in the wings or is what he is. If Chytil's next deal should really cost us 6+ - that's a good problem to have.

Buch was a 50 point player when they bridged him two years ago. That was a missed opportunity to lock him up long term. His trajectory was up every year. Then he put up 55 and 70 point paces in those 2 years since, while entering his prime, and improved in other facets of the game. Now they couldn't afford him long term. Might be different if they gave him something like a 4-5x4.5m instead of 2x3.25m.

 

Strome is very likely to be the next victim, though he was/is a harder read at the time because he floated a long as a bottom 6 player for so long before popping the year before the bridge.

 

Chytil's production has been trending up every year despite stagnating ice time. He's only 21 and a pretty big dude getting bigger. The downside to locking him up longer was minimal. I suppose the flip side is that may have not been the Rangers' choice. Chytil maybe only wanted a short deal.

I am not at all surprised they didn't want to pay him.

Buch *paces.

 

I am not at all surprised they didn't want to pay him.

They were wrong not to, 2 years ago.